Judgment SOBHAG MAL JAM, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment dated May 19, 1988 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under: Galba Under Section 304/34, I. P. C. to Five Years Rigorous Imprisonment and a form of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three monthst Rigorous Imprisonment. Under Section 325, I. P. C. to Two yearst Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months Rigorous imprisonment; and Under Section 323, I. P. C. to Six months Rigorous Imprisonment. Kesha Under Section 304/34, I. P. C. to Five Years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment. Under Section 325/34, I. P. C. to Two years Rigorous Imprisonment; and under Section 323 I. P. C. to Six months Rigorous Imprisonment. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case relates to the incident, which took place on January, 19, 1985. According to the prosecution, Lala R/o village Tikri, was hit by the accused by lathies. Lala received injuries on his chest and hand. The First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged at Police Station, Mandwa. As Lala died in the hospital, a case under Sections 302, 325 and 323, I. P. C. was registered against the accused. ( 3 ) I have gone though the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. ( 4 ) THE conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of Rawta (P. W. 2) and Bada (P. W. 9 ). Both these witnesses are eye witnesses. I do not find any reasons to disbelieve their evidence which shows that the accused-appellants beat Lata (deceased) on the date of the occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution. Mr. Ojha, amicus curiae for the accused, has however contended that the prosecution has failed to make-out a case against the accused for the offence under Section 304/34, I. P. C. He has invited my attention to the evidence of Dr. Durgawat, who has admitted that the cause of death of the deceased was his old tuberculosis and not the injuries received on his body. Durgawat, who has admitted that the cause of death of the deceased was his old tuberculosis and not the injuries received on his body. Lala was an old patient Sic* the accused cannot be held liable for ihe same. Dr. Durgawat has, however, admitted that the injury on the hand of Lala was grievous as he detected a fracture on his hand. ( 5 ) IN view of the evidence of the doctor, it is difficult to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 304/34, 1. P. C. However, as Lala also received a fracture of his hand, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 323, 325 or 325/34, I. P. C. does not call for an interference by this Court. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeals are partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 304/34, I. P. C. is set-aside. The conviction of the appellant Galba for the offences under Sections 325 and 323, I. P. C. and of the appellant, Kesha under Sections 325/34 and 323, I. P. C. and the sentences awarded to them for these counts are maintained.-Appeals partly allowed