JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals, one represented appeal filed by Jeet Singh and other tow jail appeals filed by Krishan Ram and Laxmanram arise out of the same judgment dated 23-4-1976, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Gangangar, in session case No. 46/75 whereby all the accused have been held guilty of offence under section 302/34 and 323/34 IPC. On the first count all the three accused-appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and on the second count they have been sentenced to two month's rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. All the three accused appellants have, however, been acquitted of the substantive offences under sections 342, 323 and 302 IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that Smt. Ram Pyari, daughter of Devaram resident of 13 Q has been married to one Dularam PW 9. It is alleged that Ram Pyari came to her father's house without the permission of her husband on 22-6-1974. Dularam, therefore, came to village 13 Q to take help of Shri Munshiram who happens to be his brother-in-law (gainers) and resides in village 13 Q. He came alongwith deceased Pemaram who also happens to be his brother-in-law (gainers). It is alleged that all three persons then went to the house of Devaram to request him to send back Rampyari on the evening of 23-6-74 at about 6 p.m. It is alleged that when they reached the house of Devaram, Jeetsingh and Kishnaram were also present there. In the discussion that took place between them for sending back Ram Pyari some hot words were exchanged. On account of that accused Kishna took a lathi and gave a blow on the hand of Pema deceased. Munshiram came to his rescue but he too was injured. Sensing some trouble Munshi Ram, Dularam and Pemaram ran away from the house of Devaram. They were chased by Kishanaram and Laxmanram accused and in the way they caused injuries to Munshiram on his hands and right frontal region. However, they could all reached the house of Munshiram. 3. Munshiram came to his rescue but he too was injured. Sensing some trouble Munshi Ram, Dularam and Pemaram ran away from the house of Devaram. They were chased by Kishanaram and Laxmanram accused and in the way they caused injuries to Munshiram on his hands and right frontal region. However, they could all reached the house of Munshiram. 3. It is alleged that in the same night, i.e. night intervening between 23rd and 24th June, 1975 accused persons Jeet Singh, Laxmanram and Kishana Ram came to the house of Munshi Ram at about 3.30 or 4 a.m. and told them that they want to compromise the matter and, there fore, they should accompany them. It is alleged that first they went to the house of Jeet Singh and then ultimately to the house of Devaram. There again the same stroy was repeated, i.e. on account of exchange of hot words between the two parties the accused side picked up lathis and started beating Pema Ram and Dularam. They again ran away for their life but Pemaram was caught by all these accused persons near the house of Jeevanram and there they gave beating to him. Munshiram went to his house and Dularam ran away towards other side. In the early hours of the morning Asaram informed Munshiram that Pemaram has been confined in the house of Jeetsingh and he has been beaten to death by all these three accused persons. On receipt of this information Munshiram started for the Police Station, Meetali Rathan to lodge a report of the incident. On his way in the out skirts of the village he saw these three accused persons carrying the dead body of Jeet Singh in a cart. However, Munshi Ram lodged a report Ex. P 1 at Police Station, Meetali Rathan at 11 a.m. on 24-6-74. After recording the FIR, Prem Narain, SHO, took up the investigation at 1 p.m. He seized the dead body lying outside the police station and fard Surat Hall Lash and Panchayatnama etc. were prepared. Accused Laxmanram and Kishnaram were arrested vide memos Ex. P 18 and P 19 on the same day. Post-mortem of the dead body was got conducted which has been marked Ex. P 14. Munshiram and Dularam were got medically examined and their injury reports have been marked Ex. P 12 and P 13 respectively. The site was also inspected. Accused Laxmanram and Kishnaram were arrested vide memos Ex. P 18 and P 19 on the same day. Post-mortem of the dead body was got conducted which has been marked Ex. P 14. Munshiram and Dularam were got medically examined and their injury reports have been marked Ex. P 12 and P 13 respectively. The site was also inspected. Accused Jeet Singh was arrested on 5-7-74 vide memo Ex. P 22. It s alleged that the crime article were recovered on the information of the accused persons and at their instance, blood stained clothes of Pemaram were also seized, some from his body and some on the information of accused Jeet Singh and they were sent for chemical and serological examinations. After usual investigation, the case against the accused persons was challaned in the lower court under sections 302, 302-34, 323/34 and 342 IPC. The case against accused persons were challaned in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar, from where it was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, who charged the accused as aforesaid. The accused persons did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial, Thereupon the prosecution examined in all fourteen witnesses in the case. The statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC. Accused Jeet Singh has pleaded ignorance about the occurrence and has stated that he has been falsely implicated whereas accused Laxmanram and Kishanaram had taken the plea that three persons tried to forcibly take away Mst. Ram Pyari. They woke up on hearing the cries of Ram Pyari when they tried to rescue her, these persons gave beating to them. Kishanaram came to the help of Laxmanram. On hearing their cries the neighbourer also came there and they gave beating to the them and so these Munsiram, Dularam and Pemaram ran away from the place of occurrence. Pemaram was, however, seriously injured and he fell down near the house of Jeet Singh. He was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries. They have examined DW 1 Mst. Ram Pyari in their defence. The learned lower court after hearing the parties decided the case a aforesaid. Aggrieved against this judgment accused appellants have preferred these appeals. 4. We have heard Mr. Purohit for accused appellants and Mr. K.C. Gaur for accused appellants Kishnaram and Mr. They have examined DW 1 Mst. Ram Pyari in their defence. The learned lower court after hearing the parties decided the case a aforesaid. Aggrieved against this judgment accused appellants have preferred these appeals. 4. We have heard Mr. Purohit for accused appellants and Mr. K.C. Gaur for accused appellants Kishnaram and Mr. N.M. Lodha for accused appellants Laxmanram and Mr. N.D. Khan, Public Prosecutor, for the State. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants have not challenged the factum of the incident and the participation of the accused persons in it. It has not been denied that Munshiram and Dularam had received injuries at the hands of these accused persons. It has further not been disputed that Pemaram has died on account of the injuries inflicted to him by these three accused persons. Thus they have not challenged the participation of the accused persons in the occurrence. Their only contention is that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, offence under section 302 IPC is not made out against them. It has been stated by all the learned counsel to the accused appellants that Ram Pyari has come to her father's house without the permission of her husband, therefore, Dularam wanted to take her back. Munshiram and Pemaram are his brother-in-laws. They accompanied him to the house of Devaram and there they wanted to forcibly take away Mst. Rampyari which was resisted by them. In the course of exchange of hot words some blows were inflicted to the complainant side. If there was any motive for the crime it existed against Dularam because he maltreated Mst. Ram Pyari and, therefore, she was forced to leave her house and to come to her father's house. Pemarm only came to assist Dularam. The relation were not that bad that there could exist any intention to kill Pemaram. Actually at both the occasions Dularam accompanied by Pemaram come to the house of Deva. Ram Pyari and, therefore, she was forced to leave her house and to come to her father's house. Pemarm only came to assist Dularam. The relation were not that bad that there could exist any intention to kill Pemaram. Actually at both the occasions Dularam accompanied by Pemaram come to the house of Deva. Rather it is the case of the prosecution that in the early hours of the morning of 24-6-74 accused persons went to the house of Munshiram to call them and they told that they want a compromise and so in such a situation when they themselves want to invite them to their house and which request was of course accepted by them and they accompanied them to the house of Deva it cannot be believed that the accused persons harboured any intention to kill Pemaram. It is quite possible that at the spur of the moment some hot words were exchanged which have pinched the accused persons and, therefore, they have dealt some blows to the complainant side but in the facts and circumstances of this case no intention to kill can be inferred. Reliance in this respect was placed on a decision of this Court in Jeevan v. State (1965 RLW 109) wherein in all 10 injuries were inflicted to the deceased and there of the injuries resulted in causing the comminuted fractures of the 10th and 11th ribs by which left pleural cavity was torn and the left lung has collapsed. In this case the learned Judge took a view that only offence u/s 325/34 IPC cab be held to have been made out. The confiction of the accused u/s 304 Part II/34 was set aside. 6. We have critically examined this authority. In this case only 10 injuries were inflicted. Only one lung was pierced and the doctor opined that the injuries were only likely to cause death. It was further asserted by the doctor that if timely treatment was given to Bhooraram he could have been survived. Under those circumstances the court held that the offence made out was only u/s 325/34 IPC. The facts of this case are lightly different. It was further asserted by the doctor that if timely treatment was given to Bhooraram he could have been survived. Under those circumstances the court held that the offence made out was only u/s 325/34 IPC. The facts of this case are lightly different. Here the injury inflicted were 26 in number so much so that his 9th and 10th ribs of the left side and 8th and 9th ribs of the right side have been fractured and both these fractures have pierced both the lungs and therefore both the lungs have collapsed. The doctor has opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. No question has been asked to the doctor that actually these injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but they were only likely to cause death. Moreover in this case according to the testimony of PW 2 Manphoolram, PW 4 Lekhram, PW 1 Pooran, & PW 5 Badri Prasad the injured was beaten at three places, firstly in front of the house of Jeevan, later in front of the house of Jeet Singh and thirdly near the canal and thus there was a persistant attempt on the part of the accused persons to give beating to the injuried person. It was not only a case of beating at the spur of the moment but it is a case of determined beating at three different places. Of course the injuries on the head are simple in nature but if the accused persons had landed blows after blows on the back and ribs of the injured and that have resulted in fractures of the ribs of both the sides and have damaged his lungs it can safely be inferred that the accused persons were possessed the knowledge that these injuries were likely to cause the death of Pemaram. May be that they have not intended to cause the death of Pemaram but looking to the number of injuries and the parts of the body selected for causing the injuries, we are left is not doubt to conclude that the accused persons possessed knowledge that these injuries were such that they were likely to cause death. May be that they have not intended to cause the death of Pemaram but looking to the number of injuries and the parts of the body selected for causing the injuries, we are left is not doubt to conclude that the accused persons possessed knowledge that these injuries were such that they were likely to cause death. Looking to these facts and circumstances we are inclined to hold that although the accused persons cannot be held guilty of the offence under section 302/34 IPC but they can safely be held guilty of the offence under section 304-II IPC. The conviction of the accused under section 323/34 IPC has not been challenged. So far as the sentence is concerned, accused Kishana has remained in custody from 24-6-74 to 20-12-76, accused Jeet Singh has remained in custody from 6-7-74 to 14-9-76, Laxmanram has remained in custody from 24-6-74 to 4-8-77. It is, therefore, clear that all of them have remained in custody for more than two years. The occurrence had taken place on 24-6-74, more than 12 years have already elapsed. It was, therefore, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case the accused persons should be sentenced to he period of their custody. Learned Public Prosecutor however, submitted that it is true that more than 12 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence but the accused persons hae killed Pemaram and, therefore, some compensation should persons have killed Pemaram and, therefore, some compensation should be awarded to his kith and kin. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel. We feel inclined to hold that for the offence under section 304 Part II 34 IPC each accused should be sentenced to the period of his custody alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine each one of them should undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court regarding the offence under section 323/34 IPC deserves to be maintained with this addition that substantive sentences for both the offences shall run concurrently. 7. In the result we partly accept this appeal, set aside the conviction of the accused appellants Jeetsingh, Laxmanaram under section 302/34 IPC and instead we hold them guilty of offence under section 304-II 34 IPC and sentence each on of them to the period of their custody with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. 7. In the result we partly accept this appeal, set aside the conviction of the accused appellants Jeetsingh, Laxmanaram under section 302/34 IPC and instead we hold them guilty of offence under section 304-II 34 IPC and sentence each on of them to the period of their custody with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default, each one of them shall undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence recorded against these three accused. The conviction and sentence recorded against these three accused appellants by the learned lower court regarding the offence under section 323/34 IPC is maintained. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. From the amount of fine, if recovered, Rs. 5,000/- may be paid as compensation to the wife of Pemaram deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant have prayed for two months time to deposit the amount of fine. Time prayed for is allowed. However, if the amount of fine is not paid within the aforesaid time, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to move for the arrest of the accused to serve out the sentence imposed on them in default of payment of fine.Appeal partly accepted. *******