JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 4.11.1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur, whereby he convicted the appellant, Digpal for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to life imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was further, convicted for offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Stated in succinct, relevant facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 17.6.1979 at about 1.10 a.m. Dharamveer (PW 8) Sub-Inspector recorded dying declaration (Ex. P. 1) of Farooq Khan (PW2) who was admitted in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur wherein latter stated that on 16.6.1979 at about 10 p.m. he alongwith Abdul Razak @ Toti (PW 5) were coming from the side of Prem Prakash Talkies and were going towards Tripolia gate and when they reached in front of the shop of Banarsi Das, cloth merchant, they saw that Kamruddin was being beaten by the appellant Digpal and his associates; that, the appellant was armed with knife while others had sticks; that, when they tried to rescue Kamruddin, the appellant dealt a knife blow on Kamruddin, while one of his associates inflicted a stick blow, and that thereupon Kamruddin sat down. Farooq (PW 2) further stated that the appellant, also gave a knife blow on the left side of his abdomen causing injuries to him; that he also sat down; that thereafter, many persons collected there and that the appellant and his associates fled away. Farooq Khan (PW 2) further stated that he and Kamruddin were brought in two different auto-rickshas to the hospital, Farooq (PW 2) also stated that the appellant and his companions had inflicted injuries to him and Kamruddin without any reason by knife and sticks. The said dying declaration (Ex.P.l) was sent to Police Station, Manak Chowk (Jaipur) on the same day at about 1.30 a.m. In the meanwhile, Kamruddin succumbed to his injuries. A formal first information report (Ex.P.37) was drawn and a case for offences under Sections 302/307 /34, Indian Penal Code, was registered. 3. On 17.6.79, Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW 16) conducted medico-legal autopsy on the dead body of Kamruddin and found following injuries : 1. A formal first information report (Ex.P.37) was drawn and a case for offences under Sections 302/307 /34, Indian Penal Code, was registered. 3. On 17.6.79, Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW 16) conducted medico-legal autopsy on the dead body of Kamruddin and found following injuries : 1. Lacerated Abound 5 cm X1.5 cm X bone deep, placed obliquely on fronto parietal region, left side of the scalp - surrounded by .5 cm to 3/4 cm in breadth with margins which were extra vasated, the medial margin inverted and lateral margin inverted and lateral margin everted. 2. Incised wound 2 cm X 3/4 cm X muscle deep placed obliquely on the lower ⅓ portion of deltoid muscle on right arm on the anterior lateral aspect at their junction. 3. Incised wound 3.5 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep, placed obliquely on the medial side of right arm in middle 1 /3rd portion-direction of wound was upward. 4. Incised wound-(punctured 5 placed on 4 cm below the right illiac crest (anterioilliac) crest) X 2.5 cm X 3/4 cm X peritoneal cavity deep, placed obliquely extending upto peritoneal cavity, right side, collection of blood was present in peritoneal cavity. 5. Contusion 2 cm X 1 cm placed on the posterio lateral aspect of the right forearm in middle l/3rd portion. 6. Contusion 1.5 cm X .5 cm placed on the posterio medial aspect of the right forearm in middle l/3rd portion." 4. On opening the dead body of Kamruddin, the doctor found that scalp haematoma was present on the left frontal region and in the parietal region, posterior half extending over occipital region. There was fracture of left frontal bone extending upto the upper margin of the left orbit underneath injury No. 1. Membranes were congested. The brain matter was contused on right side occipital lobe lower portion. The cerebellur in right side was also contused in lower portion. Injury No. 4 was extending upto the posterior part, penetrating the muscle 2.5 cm X 1 cm in size over pelvic muscle. The doctor vide post- mortem examination report (EX.P. 3) opined that the death of Kamruddin had occurred due to the cumulative effect of coma and syncope as a result of afore mentioned injuries, which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 5. Dr. The doctor vide post- mortem examination report (EX.P. 3) opined that the death of Kamruddin had occurred due to the cumulative effect of coma and syncope as a result of afore mentioned injuries, which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 5. Dr. D.K. Sharma, Medical Jurist, S.M.S. Hospital examined the injuries of Farooq Khan (PW 2) on 17.6.79 at 12.05 a.m., and found following injuries- 1) Incised wound 2.5 cm X 1 cm X ? deep on the left lower l/3rd of chest 11 cm below the left nipple laterally, margins are clear cut falling downwards. 2) Lacerated wound 3 X .5 cm X bone deep over left occipital region. However, on radiological examination of chest, abdomen upper portion and skull of Farooq Khan (PW 2), no bony injury was detected. Hence, all the injuries sustained by Farooq Khan (PW 2) were simple in nature. 6. The appellant & co-accused, Mahipal, Duljeet Singh & Tarachand, were arrested. During test identification parade, they were correctly identified by the eye witnesses. It is alleged that the appellant in pursuance to his information dated 27.6.79 (EX.P. 31) got recovered a knife vide recovery memo (EX.P. 25). After usual investigation, challan was filed against the appellant and other co-accused persons in the Court of Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. 7. The appellant was charged for offences under Sections 302 & 307, Indian Penal Code, while other co-accused were charged for offences under Sections 302/34 & 307/34, Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied the indictment. To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. The appellant, in his plea under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, and asserted that he neither volunteered any information nor got recovered the knife or his shirt. The appellant also submitted his written statement before the trial Court to the effect that on 11/6/79 he had gone to his village Swaki Ka Bas, Tehsil Chaksu, alongwith his mother; and that, Madanlal wanted to grab his agricultural land situated in village Badali. The appellant also submitted his written statement before the trial Court to the effect that on 11/6/79 he had gone to his village Swaki Ka Bas, Tehsil Chaksu, alongwith his mother; and that, Madanlal wanted to grab his agricultural land situated in village Badali. The appellant in his written statement, inter-alia asserted that he returned to Jaipur on 18/6/79 alongwith his mother and Ladhu Lodha and that, he had a scuffle with police officials of Manak chowk station in the past and as such, he has been falsely roped in this case. The appellant also stated that after his arrest, he was not kept `Baparda' and was shown to the prosecution witnesses and so, his test identification parade was meaningless. The appellant further stated that he was a student. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment acquitted co-accused persons Mahipal, Duljeet Singh & Tarachand for the offences under Sections 302/34 & 307/34, Indian Penal Code, but, found the appellant guilty and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 8. We have heard Shri S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned Public Prosecutor, at length, and carefully perused the record of the lower Court, in extenso. 9. At the very outset, Shri Bajwa has submitted that he does not challenge the factum of the incident but, he has strenuously canvassed that from the evidence recorded in this case, the offences made out against the appellant do not travel beyond offence punishable under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, for the injuries sustained by the deceased Kamruddin, and under Section 324 Indian Penal Code for the injuries sustained by injured Farooq Khan (PW 2). Shri Bajwa has contended that as per the testimony of Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW 16), on opening the dead body of Kamruddin, he had found fracture of left frontal bone causing injuries to the membrane and brain, which were caused by injury No. 1 i.e. lacerated wound on the fronto-parietal region and that the said injury was caused by co- accused Mahipal by a stick, who has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court. According to him, the deceased received three incised wounds, one on the lower l/3rd portion of deltoid muscle on right arm; another on the medial side of right arm in middle ⅓rd portion; and the third wound 4 cm below the right illiac crest extending upto peritoneal cavity. Shri Bajwa has contended that Dr. B.B.L. Goswami (PW 4) has not stated that any of those incised wounds sustained by the deceased Kamruddin were grievous in nature. On the other hand, Dr. Goswami (PW 4) has deposed that the cause of death of Kamruddin was due to the cumulative effect of coma and syncope as a result, of the injuries sustained by the deceased. Shri Bajwa has asserted that against the acquittal of co-accused persons Mahipal, Duljeet Singh & Tarachand, the State filed Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 456/81 (Der.), which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5.1.1982 and their acquittals were maintained. The State also did not file any Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Thus, their acquittals have become final, In such circumstances, according to Shri Bajwa, it cannot be held that the appellant had intentionally inflicted any fatal blow by knife to the deceasecbcausing his death. According to him, on the evidence recorded in this case, at the worst, it can be inferred that the appellant simply had the knowledge that by inflicting knife blow, he was likely to cause death of the deceased Kamruddin, and, therefore, the appellant can be held guilty for offence under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, only. 10. As regards the injuries sustained by Farooq Khan (PW 2), Shri Bajwa has canvassed that all those injuries were simple in nature and that only one knife blow was inflicted by the appellant to the injured, and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that he had any intention to commit the murder of Farooq Khan (PW 2) and hence the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, is not made out against the appellant. Shri Bajwa has submitted that at the time of the incident the appellant was a young lad of 16 years; that he was arrested on 19.6.79 and has remained in detention for a period of about 18 months and that, during appeal, his sentence was suspended and, therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant may be awarded sentence for the period of detention, he has already suffered. 11. Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned Public Prosecutor has reiterated reasons given by the learned trial Court and supported the impugned judgment. He has, however, admitted that the Leave to Appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of co-accused persons was rejected and that no Special Leave Petition was filed in the Apex Court. 12. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. A perusal of the post-mortem report (EX.P. 3) reveals that during trial the learned counsel for the appellant and co-accused had admitted its genuineness under Section 294, Criminal Procedure Code. subject to the cross-examination. Dr. B.B.L. Goswami (PW 4) has proved the post-mortem report (EX.P. 3) and deposed that the cause of death of Kamruddin was due to cumulative effect of coma and syncope as a result of the injuries sustained by Kamruddin. He has not cared to specifically state that any of the incised wound sustained by Kamruddin was fatal or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. As mentioned earlier, Kamruddin received lacerated wound 5 cm X 1.5 cm X bone deep placed obliquely on fronto parietal region, left side of the scalp which was surrounded by .5 cm to 3/4 cm in breadth with margins which were extra vasated. On opening the body, the doctor found scalp haematoma on the left frontal region and parietal region, posterior half extending over occipital region. The doctor has also noted fracture of the left frontal bone extending upto the upper margin of left orbit underneath injury No. 1, with congested brain. The brain matter was also contused and damaged. Therefore, from a bare perusal of the injuries sustained by deceased Kamruddin it is abundantly apparent that fatal injury was caused on the head by co-accused Mahipal, who has already been acquitted. Dr. Goswami (PW 4) has also not cared to specifically state that injury No. 4 enumerated in post mortem report (EX.P. 3) was fatal. Therefore, from a bare perusal of the injuries sustained by deceased Kamruddin it is abundantly apparent that fatal injury was caused on the head by co-accused Mahipal, who has already been acquitted. Dr. Goswami (PW 4) has also not cared to specifically state that injury No. 4 enumerated in post mortem report (EX.P. 3) was fatal. As per testimony of injured Farooq Khan (PW 2) the appellant had inflicted a knife blow on the left side of abdomen of the deceased. He does not say that appellant had inflicted any knife injury on the head of the deceased. Abdul Razak (PW 5) has also deposed likewise. Therefore, in such circumstances, from the evidence recorded in this case, it does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had an intention to commit murder of Kamruddin, however, it stands well established that the appellant while inflicting knife blow on the abdomen of Kamruddin had the knowledge that by his Act, he was likely to cause his death. Therefore, in such circumstances, the offence made out against the appellant does not travel beyond the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, so far as the injuries of the deceased are concerned. Hence, appellant's conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 13. Farooq Khan (PW2) has stated that when he tried to rescue Kamruddin, the appellant dealt a knife blow on his abdomen. A perusal of the medico legal injury report (EX.P. 15) reveals that Farooq Khan received an incised wound 2.5 cm X 1 cm X ? deep on the left lower 1 /3rd of chest 11cm below the left nipple, which was found to be simple in nature. The appellant inflicted only one knife blow on the person of Farooq Khan. This indicates that he had no intention to commit his murder. Therefore, his conviction under Section 307, Indian Penal Code also cannot be maintained. In our considered opinion, the offence made out against him for the said injury falls under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. 14. Now regarding the quantum of punishment. The incident took place on 16.6,79 i.e. more than 16 years ago. At the time of his arrest, the appellant was of about 20 years of age. During investigation, trial & appeal he has remained under detention for a period of about eighteen months. 14. Now regarding the quantum of punishment. The incident took place on 16.6,79 i.e. more than 16 years ago. At the time of his arrest, the appellant was of about 20 years of age. During investigation, trial & appeal he has remained under detention for a period of about eighteen months. The appellant has also suffered physical harassment, mental agony and financial strain for last 16 years during investigation, trial of this case and pendency of this appeal. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant would suffice to secure the ends of justice. 15. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, and the conviction & sentence of the appellant Digpal for offences under Sections 302 & 307, Indian Penal Code, are hereby set aside. However, the appellant is convicted under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, for his culpable act of inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased Kamruddin, and under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for inflicting injury to Farooq Khan (PW 2), and we sentence him, for the period of detention already suffered by him, alongwith fine of Rs. five hundred (Rs. 500/-) on each count. In default of payment of fine, the appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for two months on each count. The appellant is granted 30 days time to deposit the fine. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal partly allowed. *******