K.S. LODHA, J.—This matter comes up on the bail application of Manohar, one of the two appellants. However, learned counsel for the appellants urged that in the appeal itself, he would not challenge the facts, but would only urged that the conviction of the appellants could not have been under sec. 302 or s. 302 read with s. 34, L.P.C Mota Ram could be convicted under sec. 326, I.P.C. and Manohar under sec. 323 and 324, I.P.C. He, therefore, prays that the appeal itself may be disposed of at this stage. Learned Public Prosecutor also has no objection. Therefore, we have proceeded to hear the appeal. 2. The facts now not in dispute are that on 28-3-86, a report was lodged by Chet Ram at Police Station, Peelibanga, stating therein that on the day of Holi, there had been some verbal altercation between the two appellants Mota Ram and Manohar on the one hand and Budhram on the other under the influence of liquor, but that quarrel was settled by the intervention of Chet Ram. On 28-3-86, while Chet Ram and his sister Gita were working in their field which was near Mota Rams field Budh Ram passed by Mota Rams field at about 3.00 P.M. Mota Ram called him. Thereupon Budhram went near Mota Ram. Motaram, at that time was holding a Gandasi and Manohar had a Kasiya. When Budhram reached near them, they told him that on the day of Holi, he had escaped, but now he would not be able to do so. Oh hearing this, Budhram tried to run away, but Motaram gave a Gandasi blow which hit on the right arm of Budh Ram and Manohar gave a blow from the blunt side of Kasiya on the head of Budhram towards the back. Geeta came to his rescue, whereupon, Manohar gave a Kasiya blow to Geeta also on her left hand. When, Chetram and Kumbha Ram also rushed to the rescue of Budh Ram, whereupon the accused persons ran away. The injured Budh Ram was then brought to the village in an unconscious condition. He was taken to Peelibanga in a tractor. The injured Budhram, however, breathed his last on the way. On this report the police registered a case under secs. The injured Budh Ram was then brought to the village in an unconscious condition. He was taken to Peelibanga in a tractor. The injured Budhram, however, breathed his last on the way. On this report the police registered a case under secs. 302, 324 and 302 read with s. 34, I.P.C After usual investigation, the matter was challenged and committed to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Hanumangarh. 3. Dr. Vijay Kumar (P.W. 4) who had performed the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Budh Ram had found the following injure on his person: — "1. Incised wound-4" x 1.5" x 1" on lower 1/3 of right arm anterio-rly - obliquely directed. Muscle vein and artery cut. 2. Contusion 2" x 1" on left parietal region of scalp 2" above ear obliquely directed." On opening the body, he found that brachial was cut and divided. According to him the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to cutting of the brachial artery and vein. He also found a simple injury with a sharp-edged weapon on the left-hand over third metacarpal bone posteriorly obliquely directed. 4. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has found that these injuries had been caused by the accused (Mota Ram and Manohar) on the persons of Budh Ram and Geeta in the manner alleged by the prosecution. This finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant before us. As already stated, he has only disputed the nature of the offences of which they have been found guilty. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the offences under sec. 302 against Motaram and under sec. 302 read with s. 34, I.P C against Manohar, cannot be said to have been made out; they can only be held guilty of lesser offences, to which we will presently refer. 6. Now, as already stated above, it is not disputed before us that on the day of Holi, there had been some verbal altercation between the accused persons and Budh Ram. 6. Now, as already stated above, it is not disputed before us that on the day of Holi, there had been some verbal altercation between the accused persons and Budh Ram. Thereafter on 28 3.86, while Budhram was just passing by the field of Motaram, Motaram called him and told him that although he had escaped on the Holi, he will not be able to do so now and saying so, he struck Gandasi blow on Budhrams arm and later Manohar gave a blow with the blunt side of Kasiya on his head. This would, therefore, appear that attack was not pre-medi-tated. Budhram came to pass by the field of Mota Ram just by chance and at that time it was Mota Ram, who had called him and when he reached near him, he gave him the blow with Gandasi on the arm. If he had the intention of killing him, he would certainly have given the blow on vital part of the body or could have repeated the same, but he rest contented with the blow only on the arm of Budh Ram. He, therefore, cannot be attributed the intention of causing death of Budh Ram. The injury as such was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. Vijay Kumar has stated that despite the injury no. 1, cutting of artery and vein (Brachial) death was not possible if the injury was treated immediately. Therefore, it cannot be said that to struck the injury with the intention of causing such injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. His act, therefore, cannot fall under any of the categories mentioned in sec 300 I.P.C. Unfortunately, the injury could not be treated immediately and, therefore, there was great loss of blood leading to Budh Ranis death, but Mota Ram could not be attributed the intention or knowledge that the injury would be of such a nature as would lead to death of Budh Ram. He could only be attributed with the intention of causing hurt which may endanger life within the meaning of sec. 320, I.P.C. thereby bringing the offence under sec. 326, I.P.C. 7. He could only be attributed with the intention of causing hurt which may endanger life within the meaning of sec. 320, I.P.C. thereby bringing the offence under sec. 326, I.P.C. 7. Now, corning to the case of Manohar from the material on record, it cannot at all be inferred that at any stage there was a meeting of minds of the two assailants when Budh Ram had reached near Mota Ram on being called by him and Mota Ram gave a blow with Gandasi on his person; simultaneously Manohar also happened to give a blow with the blunt side of kasiya on Budhrams head He also, therefore, cannot be held guilty either under sec. 302 read with s. 3.4, I.P.C. or s. 326 read with s. 34, I.P.C. Both the accused can only be convicted on the basis of their individual acts. The injury caused by him was only a simple hurt by blunt weapon. Therefore, he can only be convicted under sec. 323, I.P.C. for that injury. He also gave a simple hurt with sharp edged weapon on the person of Geeta and for that he has been convicted under sec. 324, I.P.C. and, in our opinion, rightly so. 8. Looking to all the circumstances, we partly allow the appeal. We set aside the conviction of the two appellants Mota Ram and Manohar under sec. 302 and s. 302 read with s. 34, I.P.C. respectively. We convict Mota Ram under sec. 326, I.P.C and sentence him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-; in default of payment of fine, he will undergo one months rigorous imprisonment more; and we convict Manohar under sec. 323, I.P.C. and sentence him to three months rigorous imprisonment. His conviction under sec. 324, I.P.C. is maintained as also sentence passed thereunder. The substantive sentences awarded to him shall run concurrently.