JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated February 21, 1976 convicting and sentencing the appellant as under: S.No. Name of accused Offence Under Section Sentence imposed -1 Bega Ram 302, IPC Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default , six months rigorous imprisonment; 323 , IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment; -2 Kashi Ram 302 , IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- , in default 325 , IPC Two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- , in default , to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, which is short and simple, is that Surja Ram (deceased), Chunni Ram and Begaram (appellant) were real brothers and resided in village Sherahan P.S. Tibi district Sri Ganganagar. PW 1 Manphool is the son of Chunni Ram and PW 2 Rameshwar is the son of Surja Ram. The appellant Kashi Ram is the son of accused Bega Ram. The three brothers Chunni Ram, Surja Ram and Bega Ram were cultivating Kila Nos. 1,2,8,9,10,11 and 12 of Muraba No. 47 situate in Chak No. 3-H. M.M. Each brother was in possession of two Kilas while Kila No. 10 was in their joint cultivation and possession. Even in Kila No. 10, specific portions were allotted to each brother and thus the appellant Bega Ram was only cultivating ⅓ portion of Kila No. 10. At about 9.00 or 10.00 a.m. on October 18, 1974 when PW 1 Manphool was ploughing his field and Surja Ram was up-rooting the bushes in his field, the two appellants Begaram and Kashi Ram accompanied with accused Sant Ram came there. They were armed with lathies. They went to Surja Ram and started adminisrering blows to him with their lathies. Accused Begaram struck a blow of his lathi on the head of Surja Ram. Accused Kashi Ram struck a blow of his lathi on the fore-head near the eye of Surja Ram. Surja Ram fell down. The appellants and Sant Ram even thereafter landed blows to him. PW 1 Manphool and PW 2 Rameshwar rushed to protect Surja Ram. They too were not spared and were beaten by the appellants and Sant Ram. Surja Ram became unconscious on the spot. The accused thereafter left the place. Surja Ram fell down. The appellants and Sant Ram even thereafter landed blows to him. PW 1 Manphool and PW 2 Rameshwar rushed to protect Surja Ram. They too were not spared and were beaten by the appellants and Sant Ram. Surja Ram became unconscious on the spot. The accused thereafter left the place. Manphool and Rameshwar (PW 1) took Surja Ram to the Police Station, Tibi, where they reached at about 12.15 p.m. on the same day. He verbally lodged report Ex. P. 1 of the occurrence. The police registered a case Under Section s 307, 447 and 323, IPC, against the appellants and Sant Ram. The Investigating Officer sent Surja Ram for treatment to 1- RCP. Dispensary, Hanumangarh for treatment where he was admitted at about 6.00 a.m. Despite medical treatment, he did not survive and breathed his last at about 10.30 a.m. on October 19, 1974. Section 302, IPC, was thereafter added during the investigation. The Station House Officer Rakshpal Singh (PW 12) went to the Dispensary and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Surja Ram. His blood stained clothes were also seized and sealed. The post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 3.30 p.m. on October 19, 1974 by PW 10 Dr. Roop Singh. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the victim's dead body:External -- (1) One haematoma 6" x 4" on right frontal region; (2) One depression 61/2" x 4" on left fronto-parietal region; (3) Sub conjectival haemorrhage in left eye; (4) Blackish bruise, left eye lids, more in upper part; (5) One haematoma 6" x 4" on the right wrist and palm, with fracture 2nd, 3rd and 4th metacarpals; (6) One abrasion 11/2" x 1/2" at the base of left index finger, dorsal aspect; (7) One bruise 23/4" x 3/4 on the left arm, dorsal aspect. Internal-- (1) Fracture star-shaped on right frontal bone 3" x 2"; (2) Depressed fracture of left frontal bone 2" x 13/4. The doctor was of the opinion that Surja Ram died on account of head injuries. The post-mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P, 13. The doctor also examined the injuries of Manphool and Rameshwar. Four simple injuries caused by some blunt object were found on the person of Rameshwar. The doctor was of the opinion that Surja Ram died on account of head injuries. The post-mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P, 13. The doctor also examined the injuries of Manphool and Rameshwar. Four simple injuries caused by some blunt object were found on the person of Rameshwar. Four injuries caused by some blunt object were also found on the person of Manphool, three of which were simple and one was grievous. The injury was designated as grievous caused because of the fracture of the right radius. His injury report is Ex. P 14. The Investigating Officer also visited the site and prepared the site plan. The appellants and Sant Ram were arrested and in consequence of the information furnished by them, lathies were recovered. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the appellants and Sant Ram in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges Under Section s 323, 325 and 332, IPC. and some sections of the Arms Act against the appellants and Sant Ram, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused Kashi Ram and Sant Ram denied their presence on the spot and participation in the commission of the crime. Accused Begaram, in his statement Under Section 313, Cr. PC, stated that all the seven Kilas were in his exclusive possession, which he was cultivating since long. These Kilas were allotted to him by the Revenue Authorities. On the day of incident, when he was working in these fields, PW 1 Manphool and the deceased Surja Ram came there and asked him to leave the fields and to give them their shares. He declined to oblige them. The deceased Surja Ram thereafter abused him and swirled a lathi to strike blow to him. He moved aside and thus esca ped. It was further alleged by him that apprehending danger to his life he also swirled his lathi. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no witnesses but filed some documents. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found inclupating material against accused Sant Ram. He was consequently acquitted of the offences he was charged with. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no witnesses but filed some documents. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found inclupating material against accused Sant Ram. He was consequently acquitted of the offences he was charged with. The prosecution story was taken substantially true as against the appellants and they were, therefore convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out set. It may be noticed that both the appellants were acquitted of the charge of committing criminal trespass punishable Under Section 447, IPC. The appellants have come-up-in appeal and challenge their conviction. 3. Before proceeding further, it would be proper to briefly notice the prosecution evidence. The prosecution has examined there ocular witnesses of the incident, viz. PW 1 Manphool, PW 2 Rameshwar and PW 3 Shanker. Out of them, PW 2 Rameshwar and PW 3 Shanker turned hostile and lent no support to the prosecution story. It is interesting to find that PW 2 Rameshwar is none else but the real son of the deceased-victim Surja. According to prosecution, PW 3 Shanker, who was working in the nearby field of one Hanuman Bishnoi, has witnessed the incident, but he declined that he had seen the incident and the appellants' striking any blow to Surja Ram. PW 1 Manphool, no doubt, supported the prosecution version of the incident. It is he who lodged the FIR Ex. P 1 of the occurrence at the Police Station. He is an injured witness, who sustained as many as four injuries in this incident, one of which was grievous in nature. The learned Sessions Judge found the testimony of PW Manphool trustworthy and worth credence. PW 1 Manphool deposed that the appellant Bega Ram struck a blow of his lathi on the head of Surja Ram and accused Kashi Ram struck a blow of his lathi on the fore-head above the eye of Surja Ram. He further stated that accused Kashi Ram had struck a blow of his lathi on his (witness) right hand causing a fracture of his radicus. The learned Sessions Judge accepted this part of his testimony as true and dependable. 4. We have heard Mr. R.N. Bishnoi, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. L.S. Udawat the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Mr. The learned Sessions Judge accepted this part of his testimony as true and dependable. 4. We have heard Mr. R.N. Bishnoi, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. L.S. Udawat the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Mr. Bishnoi, appearing for the appellants conceded with all fairness that an accused can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness provided the witness is of sterling worth and his testimony is free from suspicion and above board. It was also conceded by him that though PW 2 Rameshwar and PW 3 Shanker have turned hostile, their hostility will not detract from the evidentiary value to be attached to the testimony of PW 1 Manphool. It was further conceded by him that the presence of PW 1 Manphool is not open to any doubt because he all received simple and grievous injuries in this incide Mr. Bishnoi, therefore, did not challenge the incident and the finding of the trial Court that the appellant struck blows to Surja Ram and thereby caused his death. His submission is that even if the testimony of PW 1 Manphool is accepted as reliable and dependable the offence made out is not that of culpable homicide amounting to murder, but that punishable under the Second Part of Section 304, IPC. It was argued that before this incident there was no bad-blood between the deceased and the appellants. The deceased was the real brother of appellant Begaram and the real uncle of appellant Kashi Ram. PW 1 Manphool did not state as to how the occurrence started. The several fields were allotted to the appellant Begaram on September 11, 1974 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sri Ganganagar by his order Ex. D 2. Begaram, therefore went to Kila No. 10 as he had a right to go there. It was argued that it appears that the deceased Surjaram and PW 1 Manphool went to appellant Begaram and picked-up some quarrel. It was in the background of these facts and circumstances that the two appellants struck blows to the deceased Sujaram. There was, thus, no intention on their part to kill Surjaram It was argued by Mr. Bishnoi that the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body, did not state that the head injuries of Surjaram were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There was, thus, no intention on their part to kill Surjaram It was argued by Mr. Bishnoi that the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body, did not state that the head injuries of Surjaram were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The offence which, at the most, can be said to have been made out does not travel beyond the Second Part of Section 304, IPC. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Rawta and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1984 Cr.LR (Raj) 27 and Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1984 Cr.LR (Raj) 99 . In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant inflicted blows with their lathies on the head of the deceased. Since head was chosen for infliction of the injuries and the weapons used were lathies, it should be inferred that they intended to kill Surjaram. Though the doctor had not stated that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the doctor did state that all the injuries found on the victim's dead body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellants were, therefore, rightly convicted Under Section 302, IPC. We have bestowed our thoughtful anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 6. Admittedly, there was no bad-blood between the deceased-victim and the appellants before this incident The deceased-victim Surjaram was the real brother of appellant Begaram and the real uncle of appellant Kashi Ram, Ex. D 2 is an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Hanumangarh dated September 11. 1974. It was, thus, passed before the day of the incident. Ex. D 2 shows that all these seven kilas No. 1, 2 and 8 to 12 were permanently allotted to the appellant Begaram. It appears that Begaram, in pursuance to Ex. D 2, asserted his exclusive right of possession over all the seven fields including Kila No. 10. PW 1 Manphool, according to his own admission, was working at some distance from Surjaram. He stated that the appellants came and without uttering any word, landed blows, to Surjaram, whereas in FIR Ex. P 1 he stated that the appellants came raising Lalkars and asked Surjaram to leave the field and go away. He was confronted with this portion (E to F), but he denied to have stated so therein. He stated that the appellants came and without uttering any word, landed blows, to Surjaram, whereas in FIR Ex. P 1 he stated that the appellants came raising Lalkars and asked Surjaram to leave the field and go away. He was confronted with this portion (E to F), but he denied to have stated so therein. We are, therefore, not certain as to what transpired between the appellants and the deceased before they landed blows to the victim. It appears that when appellant Begaram asserted his exclusive right over the fields in pursuance to order Ex. D 2. Surjaram resisted him. It was in this background that the appellants struck blows to Surjaram. There was, thus, no intention on their part to kill Surjaram. 7. PW 10 Dr. Roopsingh. who conducted the medico-legal autopsy over the victim's dead body, did not state that head injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to him, the injuries found on the victim's dead body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants had no intention to cause the victim's death. In as much as death has been caused, the matter must still come atleast within the meaning of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellants did the act with the knowledge that by their act they were likely to cause death of the victim, The case, thus, falls within the third part of Section 299 and is, therefore, punishable under the Second Part of Section 304, IPC as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In Laxman Kalu Nikelji v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 1390 , provides an apology. 8. In Rawta's case (supra), the deceased-victim had an incised wound on the fore-head as well as a lacerated wound on the right parieto-occipital region. Right parieto-occipital bone and 4th, 5th and 6th ribs posteriorly on both the sides right and left-tibia, fibula, right radius and ulna, left humerus and ulna were fractured. Since there was no intention to cause death, the offence was taken to be that under the Second Part of Section 304, IPC. 9. In Lalchand's case (supra), to which one of us (Hon'ble Byas, J.) was a party, a similar situation arose. The offence made out was taken to be Under Section 325, IPC. 10. Since there was no intention to cause death, the offence was taken to be that under the Second Part of Section 304, IPC. 9. In Lalchand's case (supra), to which one of us (Hon'ble Byas, J.) was a party, a similar situation arose. The offence made out was taken to be Under Section 325, IPC. 10. Accused Begaram was arrested on October 23, 1974 and remained in detention upto July 26, 1978. Accused Kashiram was arrested on October 28, 1974 and remained in detention upto July 26, 1978. The appellants have, thus, undergone imprisonment for a period of nearly four years. It would not be proper now to send them to jail after a lapse of nearly eight years. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the appellants should be sentenced to the period of detention already undergone by them. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants Begaram a Kashiran Under Section 302, IPC are set-aside and instead they are convicted under the Second Part of Section 304, IPC and each is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Their conviction and sentence for the remaining offences are maintained. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The appellants are on bail and they need nor surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 12. The appeal shall stand disposed of in the manner indicated.Appeal Partly allowed. *******