JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 31st March, 83, passed by the Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 1/1983, by which, he convicted and sentenced each of the accused-appellants as under:- Offence u/s. Sentence 148, IPC 1 Year's RI and a fine of Rs. 100/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's S.I. each. 302, IPC r/w 149, IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case in a narrow compas may, be stated thus that one Pyarelal, son of Harsukha, lodged a written-report at PS Govind Garh on 16th October, 1982, at 10.45 AM, alleging that on that morning, at about 8 Oclock, when he had gone to his field, he was followed by his father. It was further stated in the report that as soon as he (Pyarelal) reached the field, he saw that his father was surrounded by Nandram, Chiranji, Bhajan, Banshi, Sohanlal, Madanlal, Teja, Pyare, Bhonrelal, Keshar and Mohanlal. It was further alleged therein that those persons were armed with lathis. Pyarelal further alleged in the report that Nandram inflicted a lathi blow on the hands of his father first and asked the others to finish him first. It was also stated in the report that later on, Chiranji, son of Nandram inflicted a lathi blow on the foot of his father. On receipt of that blow, his father fell down. It was further stated that Sohanlal and Madanlal also inflicted lathi blows to his father. In the said report, Pyarelal also mentioned that Bhonrelal, Keshar, Sohanlal, Bhajanlal etc. also inflicted lathi blows to his father; and Pyare and Teja inflicted lathi blows on the chest of his father. It was also mentioned in the report that on seeing other people coming the accused persons ran away; and after their departure, he (Pyarelal) went to his father and found that he had already succumbed to his injuries. On receipt of the report, a case was registered under sections 147, 148, 149 & 302, IPC. 3. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, was conducted. 23 in juries were found on the person of the deceased. On receipt of the report, a case was registered under sections 147, 148, 149 & 302, IPC. 3. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, was conducted. 23 in juries were found on the person of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to multiple injuries resulting in shock and consequent syncope. 4. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against 11 accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge charged all the 11 accused persons with offences under sections 148, & 302/149, IPC. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced as many as 11 witnesses. The accused persons pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted accused Mohanlal of the offences charged against him, and convicted the rest of the accused persons as mentioned above. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment & order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, this appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants. 8. Mr. Biri Singh, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that he is not challenging the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. He also made it clear that he is not assailing the finding regarding the part prayed in the incident by the accused-appellants, i.e., in causing injuries to the deceased. His contention is that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case; and the injuries sustained by the deceased, no case under section 302, IPC, is made out against the accused-appellants. 9. Dr. Vishnu Kumar Mathur, PW 5 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Harsukha. He found 23 injuries on the person of the deceased. He found 4 fractures; and the other injuries were simple in nature. The injuries, in the opinion of the doctor, were ante-mortem and were caused by some blunt object like lathi. The doctor opined that the death had occurred due to multiple injuries resulting in shock and consequent syncope. It was further opinion of Dr. V.K. Mathur PW 5 that none of the injuries was individually sufficient to result in death. It was further observed by him that the fractures were found not on any vital part of the body. He has also expressed his opinion that excepting the fractures, the remaining injuries were simple in nature. 10. It was further opinion of Dr. V.K. Mathur PW 5 that none of the injuries was individually sufficient to result in death. It was further observed by him that the fractures were found not on any vital part of the body. He has also expressed his opinion that excepting the fractures, the remaining injuries were simple in nature. 10. In view of the fact that the injuries were caused by lathi blows and none of the injuries individually was sufficient to result in death and the death was result of multiple injuries; and further that there was no pre-plan of the accused persons to murder Harsukha, we are of the opinion that the case against the accused-appellants, does not fall under any of the first four clauses of Section 300, IPC. 11. In Mehrchand v. The State of Rajasthan, 1969 RLW 601 , the facts were that multiple injuries were caused, and no injury was on any vital part of the body. The assailants in that case, had made a severe attack on Dhokal, who was unarmed, and caused as many as 18 injuries, which had resulted in fracture of leg and hand. In that case, it was held that the act which was done by the accused persons must be presumed to have been done with the knowledge that death of Dhokal was likely to be caused by that act. It was also held that the case was covered by clause, "thirdly" of Section 300, IPC. As (he act was done by the accused persons with the knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death of Dhokal, the accused persons, were therefore, held punishable under section 304-II, IPC. 12. In Malluram and Another v. The State of Rajasthan, 1985 Cr. LR (Raj.) 612 , the facts were that the accused persons intended to chastise the victim and gave him a severe beating, and in that process, one of them inflicted a blow on his head which resulted in his death. It was held in that case that the act of beating was done with the knowledge that by their act, it was likely to cause death, and as such, an offence under section 304-II/34 IPC was made out against the accused persons. 13. It was held in that case that the act of beating was done with the knowledge that by their act, it was likely to cause death, and as such, an offence under section 304-II/34 IPC was made out against the accused persons. 13. In Sarvansingh v. State of Punjab, 1978 SCC 549 , the facts were that 5 accused persons armed with various weapons caused injuries to the deceased, which resulted in his death. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in that case observed that if a person causes an injury with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and that bodily injury intended to be inflicted, it is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then the offence would fall under clause, "thirdly" of Section 300, IPC, and would be an offence under section 302, IPC. In that case, 5 accused persons were convicted by the trial court of offence under section 302/149, IPC. In order to find the accused person guilty of offence under section 302/149, IPC, the prosecution must establish that the offence was committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. The Supreme Court in that case, further observed that it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit an offence under section 302, or that the members of the assembly knew it that an offence under section 302, IPC would be committed in the prosecution of the common object. The Supreme Court further observed that the cumulative effect of the injuries should be found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Supreme Court further observed that the cumulative effect of the injuries should be found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Supreme Court in that case further observed that if the injuries that are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, are traced for a particular accused he would be guilty of offence under section 302, IPC, without the aid of Section 149, IPC and when the injuries caused are cumulatively sufficient to cause death, it is necessary before holding each of the accused guilty under Section 302/149, IPC to find that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause death or that the members of the unlawful assembly knew it to be likely that an offence under section 302, IPC would be committed in prosecution of the common object; and after discussing the evidence on record and the injuries caused to the deceased, in detail, their Lordships observed that the common object of the assembly in the circumstances, could only be said to cause injuries which were likely to cause death which would be an offence under section 304-I IPC. In that case, there were injuries caused by the accused persons by various weapons, and a member of incised wounds on head and chest had been caused; and it was in those circumstances that their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that a case was made out under section 304-I, IPC. 14. The same is not the position in the instant case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the nature of the injuries and the weapon used we are of the view that a case against the accused-appellants under section 304 I, r/w 149 IPC, made out. The conviction of the accused-appellant under section 148, IPC, is also not maintainable in view of the fact that the accused-appellants were not armed with deadly weapons, but, undoubtedly, an offence under section 147, IPC, is clearly made out on the basis of the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 15. In the result, the appeal of the accused-appellants is partly accepted. The conviction and the sentences of the accused-appellants u/ss 302/149 & 148, IPC, are set aside. Instead, the accused-appellants are convicted under section 304 I, IPC, and each of them is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. 15. In the result, the appeal of the accused-appellants is partly accepted. The conviction and the sentences of the accused-appellants u/ss 302/149 & 148, IPC, are set aside. Instead, the accused-appellants are convicted under section 304 I, IPC, and each of them is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. They are also convicted under section 147, IPC, and each of them is sentenced to 1 years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Accused Nandram is on bail. The trial court is directed to arrest accused Nandram and sent him to jail to undergo the sentence of imprisonment, awarded to him by this Court.Appeal partly allowed. *******