JUDGMENT 1. - Eight persons were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa for various offences and three of them have been acquitted while the five appellants before us have been convicted and sentenced as under: Ramswaroop : Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code Life Imprisonment. Under Section 148 IPC: One years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, one month's simple imprisonment.Under Section 323/149; six months simple imprisonment. Ramesh Chandra, Amarchand @ Amar Singh, Jogi and Smt. Rookmani: Under Section 302/149 IPC: Life Imprisonment, under Section 323/ 149 Indian Penal Code : Six months simple imprisonment. Under Section 147 Indian Penal Code : One years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine one months' simple imprisonment.Against this conviction and sentence passed on 6th April, 1989 these five appellants have filed this appeal. 2. The first information in the case was lodged by PW 5 Suresh and has been marked as Ex. P. 4. The subject matter of this report shows that it is in connection with marpeet. The report shows that on 12th March, 1987 at about 10.00 p.m. when he was at his house then Ram Swaroop, Kamraj, Ramesh, Amar Singh, with whom they have previous enmity came there. They were having lathi, knife, Saila, Ballam etc. and gave beating by them. His mother received an injury on her forehead while his brother Ramji Lal received knife blows. Suresh himself received a lathi blow on his face as a result of which his teeth were broken. 3. Ramji Lal was admitted to the hospital and the Doctor who examined him prepared the report Ex. P. 1 and found the following injuries: (1) Incised wound 1/4 X 1/1 X 1/2 over (t) iliac quadrant of abdoman. Margines of wound regular - simple-sharp. (2) Lacerated wound 3/4" X 1/10" X ⅓" over lateral half of (L) eye- brow-simple-sharp. Margins of wound irregular and ragged. All the injuries were simple in nature. Suresh received one lacerated wound and two abrasions and as he complained about fall of teeth, the Doctor examined from this aspect also but there was no evidence of any injury on the lips or on the gums and teeth. Gulab received one lacerated wound with swelling on the forehead and this was also simple in nature. 4. Suresh received one lacerated wound and two abrasions and as he complained about fall of teeth, the Doctor examined from this aspect also but there was no evidence of any injury on the lips or on the gums and teeth. Gulab received one lacerated wound with swelling on the forehead and this was also simple in nature. 4. Ramji Lal died four days after the incident on 16th March, 1987. In the post mortem report, the following external injuries were found: (1) Stitched wound 2 cm. long on left eyebrow lateral and with scap formation dry and hard in nature. (2) Stitched wound 13 cm. long hairs 15 interrupted sutures on left side of abdomen placed vertically in para media plane. 4 tension sutures are seen in between. Underlying sheath of muscles is seen stitched. On dissection peritoneum stitched. Further mesentry below it is seen stitched about 3 cm. long having 4 stitches. On jejunum one stitched wound about 5 cm. away from mesenteric tear having 2 stitches. Repaired two stitched wound having 3 stitches on each present on mesenteric side about 8 cm. distal to mesenteric tear on jejunum. One repaired wound having 7 stitches about 5 feet distal to due do jejunal junction is seen on jejunum. Signs of haemopertinoum present about 50 c.c. of dark clotted blood and blood clots seen. Pus and slough present over the surfaces which are repaired previously. (3) Stitched wound 1.5. cm. long having 3 stitches on left lumbar region near iliac region. All injuries are anti mortem in nature. In the opinion of the Doctor the cause of death was septicaemic shock brought about as the result of injuries as mentioned in the report and all the injuries were anti mortem in nature. He further clarified that injury No. 2 was sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. 5. No one has tried to produce the Doctor who treated Ramji Lal and to show what treatment was given to him. From the description of injury No. 2 in the post mortem report it is obvious that the injury had been operated as there were stitches inside as well as out side. When the injury report shows the dimension of the injury on the abdomen as 1/4 X 1/4 X 1/2" then how this injury came to be 13 cm. long has not been explained by the prosecution. When the injury report shows the dimension of the injury on the abdomen as 1/4 X 1/4 X 1/2" then how this injury came to be 13 cm. long has not been explained by the prosecution. In absence of any explanation it can be said that it was due to the surgical intervention and subsequently the wound became septic and this brought about the death of the deceased. Hence the liability of the accused is to be judged on the basis of the injuries which are found in the injury report Ex. P. 3 and not on the basis of septicaemic which could also have been the result of the surgery. 6. The eye-witnesses are PW 2 Gulab and PW 5 Suresh. Both of them have attributed the fatal injury to appellant Ram Swaroop who had a knife and wielded the same in the abdomen of the deceased. Besides these two injured witnesses there are other witnesses also but when these two witnesses proved that the injury inflicted on Ramji Lal which caused death was inflicted by Ram Swaroop then it stands proved that Ram Swaroop is the person guilty of causing this injury. The other accused, who have been convicted for simple injuries by lathi and other weapons for causing simple injuries for the offence under Section 302 IPC, have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 7. The reason why the occurrence took place has also not come out but it so appears that the wife of appellant Ram Swaroop was released by him and after that Ramji Lal, deceased kept her as a result of which all the accused were having enmity. For this reason, it may be said that Ram Swaroop could be having a grudge against Ramji Lal deceased but there is no reason why all the accused should want to take revenge on Ramji Lal. The other accused cannot be convicted for the act of Ram Swaroop with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 8. Now, we have to see as to what offence can be said to be made out against the accused/ appellant Ram Swaroop as there is no evidence to show as to what was the intention of the accused persons. The intention can be derived only from the injuries which have actually been caused by him. 8. Now, we have to see as to what offence can be said to be made out against the accused/ appellant Ram Swaroop as there is no evidence to show as to what was the intention of the accused persons. The intention can be derived only from the injuries which have actually been caused by him. There is only one injury on Ramji Lal, which has been caused by Ramswaroop. The intention of causing death or causing such injury as is likely to cause death cannot be inferred from this injury and his case and can at least fall under Section 304-II Indian Penal Code as it can be said that the act was not done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. The appellant Ram Swaroop has remained in custody for over four years. We consider this sentence sufficient for the act of the accused/appellant Ram Swaroop.As far as the other accused are concerned, their offence would fall under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and they have also remained in custody for a few days, after their conviction by the Trial Court, this period of custody is treated sufficient punishment for them.Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed. All the accused are acquitted of the offences under Sections 302, 302/149, 323/149 and 147 IPC. Accused appellant Ram Swaroop is convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The appellants Ramesh Chand, Amar Chand @ Amar Singh, Jogi and Smt. Rookmani are convicted for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and they have already undergone sentence for this offence and need not be sentenced again.The accused appellant Ram Swaroop is in jail, he shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******