BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants in the Criminal Appeal who are the respondents in the Government Appeal (to be described hereinafter as the appellants) stand convicted under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code), while being acquitted of the charge of murder alleged to have been committed in furtherance of their common intention with the acquitted co-accused G. Nagabhusan Rao, for voluntarily causing hurt to Bori Kandal Rao (to be described hereinafter as the deceasedt) on June 8, 1971, at Bandhugam in the district of Koraput, by the Court of Session which has accepted the case of the prosecution against them, while rejecting a part of the evidence against the acquitted co-accused, relying on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, the witnesses to the occurrence, the dying declarations of the deceased made before P. Ws. 7, 8 and 11 implicating the appellants and the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 12) who had conducted the autopsy and rejecting the plea of denial set up by the appellants and the evidence of the witnesses for the defence. ( 2 ) THE State is in appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge in respect of the charge of murder and it has been contended that the offence would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder coming under the second part of section 304 of the Code. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the evidence did not warrant a conviction of the appellants for the commission of any offence and they were entitled to an acquittal. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for both the sides have taken us through the relevant evidence. The evidence of the doctor (P. W. 12) would show that the death of he deceased was homicidal in nature and the injury on the chest which could be caused by a fall or a lathi resulting in the internal injury to the lung had caused death owing to a shock and haemorrhage. We are at one with the learned trial Judge that P. Ws. 1 to 3 were witnesses of truth and their evidence against the two appellants is clear and consistent. We are at one with the learned trial Judge that P. Ws. 1 to 3 were witnesses of truth and their evidence against the two appellants is clear and consistent. As would appear from their evidence, - the appellant G. Narayan Murty caught hold of the deceased and the other appellant dealt a stick blow on the back of the deceased and then dealt fist blows and slaps on the deceased. It is not necessary to catalogue their evidence to details and reiterate the reasons given by the learned trial Judge while holding that the evidence of P. Ws 1 to 3 is worthy of credence. ( 4 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 has found assurance from the dying declarations of the deceased before P. Ws. 7, 8 and 11 in so far as the two appellants were concerned and the medical evidence would also corroborate the of P. Ws. 1 to 3. The trial court has for sufficient reasons discarded the evidence adduced from the side of the defence to probabilise the case of the appellants. ( 5 ) IT would be seen from the evidence of the doctor, P. W. 12) the he had found a fracture of the nasal bone It is, however, important to keep in mind that the deceased had first appeared before another doctor (P. W. 11) who had noticed no such injury. It could be the some time after the occurrence and his appearance before P. W. 11, the deceased had sustained the injury on the nasal bone. ( 6 ) AS for the offence, the learned trial Judge has discussed the factual and legal aspects in paragraph 16 of the judgment and has held that the offence would be one of causing hurt coming within the purview of section 323 of the Code. ( 7 ) MERELY became death has been caused, intention or knowledge on the part of the accused is not to be assumed. The degree of guilt of the accused is not to be extended beyond what be had intended or known as the probable consequence of his act. In the absence of intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be one of causing grievous hurt or simple hurt, as the case may be. The degree of guilt of the accused is not to be extended beyond what be had intended or known as the probable consequence of his act. In the absence of intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be one of causing grievous hurt or simple hurt, as the case may be. When injuries have been followed by death and the question is what offence had been committed, it is not to be concluded by any backward reasoning as to the presumable intention or knowledge from the mere fact that the injuries fused did, in fact, result in death. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances of the case and in particular, regard being had to the fact that no lethal weapon had been used by any of the appellant in dealing blows on the deceased and after the appellant Sridhar bad dealt but one stick blow on the back, be had dealt some slaps and fist blows, it would be reasonable to hold that the appellants had not intention of coming the death of the deceased nor could they be attributed with the knowledge that by their acts, they were likely to cause his death. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the finding of the trial court that the appellants are liable to be convicted under section 323 read with section 34 of the Code is to be sustained. ( 10 ) IN the result, the Government Appeal fails and is dismissed. The order of conviction recorded against the two appellants under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. As to the sentences, the appellant G. Narayan Murty has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. The sentence passed against the other appellant, namely, G. Sridhar, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months is reduced to the period already undergone by him as that would meet the ends of justice. With this modification in the sentence passed against one of the appellants, the Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed. D. P. Mohapatra, J.-I agree. Govt. appeal dismissed. Criminal appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.