JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 2nd of February, 1988 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar by which appellant Jangir Singh was convicted Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and appellant Ninder Singh was convicted Under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to the trial of the appellants and the present appeal are that when on 11.9.1986 at about 4 or 5 a.m. Ameer Singh, deceased alongwith his wife Taro Bai (PW 1), son Pala Singh (PW 2) and daughter Jaggro was sleeping outside his house, the two appellants came to him and asked him to accompany them. On his asking why they wanted him to accompany them, he was told that he may take the bicycle from his house. Despite Taro Bai asking him not to go, Ameer Singh accompanied Jangir Singh and Ninder Singh and went to the diggi outside the house of the appellants, at a little distance from the house his. Jagar Sing, father of Ninder Singh instigated them to give a beating to Ameer Singh. Jangir Singh inflicted kasia blow on the head of Ameer Singh and when he fell down, Ninder Singh caused injuries on his right foot, cali and behind the knee with Gandasi. On Ameer Singh raising a cry, Taro Bai and Pala Singh reached there and rescued them. They took him to their house on a cot. Jaggar Singh, the brother in law of Ameer Singh, who had come to see his daughter in the village, also reached the house of Ameer singh at about 7 a.m. At 8.30 a.m. he went to Karanpur to bring a jeep and returned at about 9 a.m. At 12 a.m. Ameer Singh went to police station, Karanpur Ameer Singh lodged the report Ex. P. 2. He was then taken to Karanpur hospital. Dr. Iqbal (PW 3), incharge of Primary Health Centre, Karanpur, examined the injuries of Ameer Singh. At 2.10 a.m. on 11.9.1986 he prepared the injury report Ex. P. 7. The doctor noted following injuries on his person. 1 Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep Anterior to Vertex. 2. Incised wound 11/2 cm. Dr. Iqbal (PW 3), incharge of Primary Health Centre, Karanpur, examined the injuries of Ameer Singh. At 2.10 a.m. on 11.9.1986 he prepared the injury report Ex. P. 7. The doctor noted following injuries on his person. 1 Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep Anterior to Vertex. 2. Incised wound 11/2 cm. x 1 cm x 1/2 cm lateral upper third of left leg. 3. Incised wound 21/2 cm x 1 cm x 1/2cm medial of right poptitial. 4. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 x ⅓cm medial upper third of right leg. 5. Swelling--Middle of right leg all around. 6. Swelling--Middle of left leg all around. The doctor sent the injured to Ganganagar for x-ray. The x-ray report Ex. P. 8 was received by the doctor. The injured returned from Ganganagar and was treated by Dr. Iqbal Singh. Dr. Iqbal Singh asked him to get the injuries No. 1,5 and 6 x-ray again because the first x-ray report was not clear. The patient, however, did not go for x-ray. On 14.9.1986 at 5 p.m. Ameer Singh expired. Dr. Iqbal Singh conducted the autopsy over the dead body. Postmortem Examination Report is Ex. P 9. Initially the case was registered Under Sections 307, 341, 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code on the basis of information furnished by injured Ameer Singh but subsequently on his death case Under Section 307 was converted into 302, Indian Penal Code. SHO, Hukam Singh (PW 10) conducted investigation on 23.9.1986. He arrested the two appellants and Jaggar Singh on 26.9.1986. In pursuance of the information Ex. P 12 furnished by appellant Jangir Singh, the SHC) recovered one iron Kassia with wooden handle, measuring about 5' in length, from the roof of the kotha of Jangir Singh. In pursuance of the information Ex. P 13 furnished by Ninder Singh, the SHO recovered one gandasi with wooden handle, measuring about 3' in length, from the roof of the kotha of Ninder Singh. The recovered weapons and the blood stained clothes of deceased Ameer Singh were sent for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex. P 25. 3. Upon completion of necessary investigation, chargesheet against the appellant and Jaggar Singh (since acquitted by the learned trial Judge) was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur. The recovered weapons and the blood stained clothes of deceased Ameer Singh were sent for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex. P 25. 3. Upon completion of necessary investigation, chargesheet against the appellant and Jaggar Singh (since acquitted by the learned trial Judge) was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No 19 Sri Ganganagar. Upon the denial of the charges by the accused, the learned Judge proceeded with the trial. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses to substantiate its case. In their statements Under Section 313, Cr. PC all the accused denied the allegations and stated that deceased Ameer Singh was a Mukhbir of the Excise Department and was helping the department in getting detected the hearth for stilling illicit liquor and the persons engaged therein and, therefore, they cannot say who murdered him. That, they have been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined. 4. The learned Judge did not hold Jaggar Singh guilty of the charge and acquitted him. The case against the appellants was however held to be established from the statements of Taro Bai and Pala Singh and they were convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. 5. Feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 6. We heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. 7. At the commencement of the arguments Mr. Garg submitted that he would not argue the appeal on merits but would only make submissions regarding the nature of the offence and quantum of punishment. 8. According to learned Counsel the nature of the injuries, the weapons used and the force applied do not make out a cause of murder and the appellants should be held liable for their individual acts. 9. From the statements of Taro Bai and Pala Singh it appears that on hearing the cry of Ameer Singh they had rushed to the site and had seen the incident. It is however not known as to what was the origin of the quarrel. The motive of the crime according to the prosecution was that Ameer Singh was a Mukhbir of the Excise Department and that had annoyed the appellants. It is however not known as to what was the origin of the quarrel. The motive of the crime according to the prosecution was that Ameer Singh was a Mukhbir of the Excise Department and that had annoyed the appellants. It is evident from the record that Ameer Singh was also involved in certain excise cases. The injuries initially did not appear to be serious. The nature of the injuries show that they were initially not taken to be serious and that might be the reason for Ameer Singh not being taken to the hospital while going to the police station, though_ the hospital fall in the way. Dr. Iqbal clinically could not detect the seriousness of the injuries. The first x-ray report was not clear. The injured was asked to go to Ganganagar hospital and get x-rayed again. He did not care to go there. The cause of death revealed in postmortem examination was head injury causing intracranial extradural hemorrhage causing in increased intracranial tension leading to vaso motor failure. According to the doctor, injuries No. 1, 5 and 6 were by blunt object and injuries No. 2, 3 and 4, the incised wounds were caused by sharp object. The dimensions of the injuries do not indicate any intention of the assailant to commit murder or to cause such bodily injury which may cause death. The investigating officer also did not take the matter seriously and did not arrest the accused till 22.9.1986. The injured was quite conscious after sustaining the injuries and had lodged the first information report. The facts also show that had proper medical aid been given or the patient would have been careful to follow the instructions of the doctor in going to Ganganagar for second x- ray there could have been chances of his survival. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the nature of the weapon and its use by Jangir Singh does not establish his guilt Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. All that can be said is that while inflicting injury on the head, be that even by blunt object, Jangir Singh must have knowledge that inflicting blow on the vital part of the body may cause bodily injury likely to cause death. In the absence of material to suggest common intention of Ninder Singh for the murder of Ameer Singh, he can be held guilty for his own act only. In the absence of material to suggest common intention of Ninder Singh for the murder of Ameer Singh, he can be held guilty for his own act only. The injuries caused by him are simple in nature and therefore his case does not travel beyond Section 324 Indian Penal Code. 10. In view of the above discussion, we hold Jangir Singh guilty Under Section 304 Part II and Ninder Singh Under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. Regarding the quantum of sentence, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Jangir Singh is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 23.9.1986 and Ninder Singh had remained in custody for one year and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the appellants are awarded sentence for the period they have remained in custody, and sentence of fine is imposed. 12. Consequently, the appeal of Jangir Singh and Ninder Singh is partly allowed. Their conviction Under Section 302/34 and sentences awarded on that count set aside. Jangir Singh is instead of convicted Under Section 304 Part II and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period he had remained in custody so far i.e. from 23.9.1986 till today. In addition thereto, he is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to under go one year's rigorous imprisonment. The Conviction and sentnce imposed upon Ninder Singh Under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code are set aside and he is instead of convicted Under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the period he had remained in custody so far. In addition thereto, he is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine when recovered shall be paid to Taro Bai, wife of the deceased. Ninder Singh is on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged. Jangir Singh is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. They are allowed two months' time to deposit the amount in the trial court.Appeal partly allowed. *******