JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The four appellants have been convicted under Section 304, Part-II, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellants along with the acquitted accused Sebati Dei were charged under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that the four appellants had caused the death of deceased Abhoy Charan Patnaik, at the instigation of the acquitted accused person. 2. The prosecution case is as follows : There was a bamboo clump on the joint family land of the deceased and his co-sharers. However, one Anand Mohan Patnaik had sold the said land without the consent of other co-sharers to the acquitted accused and a litigation was pending regarding the said land. On 3.5.1984 at about 6.30 A.M. the four appellants who where the hired labourers came to the disputed plot and started cutting the bamboo clump. The deceased intervened and forbade them to cut the bamboo clump, but the appellants in spite of the protest of the deceased continued to cut the bamboo clump. It is alleged that at that time the four appellants tussled with the deceased as a result of which the latter fell down and the four appellants trampled on him being instigated by the acquitted accused. The deceased went towards the Police Outpost being followed by his mother (P.W.6) On reaching the Outpost, he fell down on the verandah and lost sense and thereafter he was removed to Nirakarpur Government Dispensary, where the doctor tried to revive him. However, the deceased did not revive and was declared dead. On the basis of the report of the doctor, Ext.2, U.D.Case No.3/84 was registered. The statement of P.W.l, the daughter of the deceased in the said U.D.Case was treated as F.I.R. and the case was registered under Section 302/34. Indian Penal Code, and subsequently, charge sheet was filed against five accused persons including the four appellants. 3. The plea of the accused persons was one of denial. 4. The statement of P.W.l, the daughter of the deceased in the said U.D.Case was treated as F.I.R. and the case was registered under Section 302/34. Indian Penal Code, and subsequently, charge sheet was filed against five accused persons including the four appellants. 3. The plea of the accused persons was one of denial. 4. The two daughters of the deceased, the two eye witnesses, were examined as P.Ws.1 and 5, whereas the mother of the deceased who also claimed to be an eye witness was examined as P.W.6 The doctor who treated the deceased first at Nirakarpur Government Dispensary was examined as P.W.2 and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was examined as P.W.3 The trial Court while discarding the evidence of P.W.6 placed reliance upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5. It was found on the basis of the evidence of P.W.3 that the death was homicidal and the present appellants had caused the death of the deceased by trampling upon him. It was, however, found that the appellants had no intention of causing death of the deceased but they had knowledge that death was the likely result of their action. It was further held that there was no premeditation and the attack was made in course of a sudden quarrel. On such findings, the trial Court convicted the four appellants under Section 304, Part-II, I.P.C. but acquitted the other accused on the ground that there was no abetment by her. 5. P.W.2, the doctor, who had first treated the deceased has stated in his cross-examination that failure of cardiac respiratory system was the proximate cause of the death. However, P.W.3 who conducted the post-mortem examination has stated that the death was due to internal haemorrhage resulting in shock. On the basis of the aforesaid statements of the two doctors, the learned counsel for the appellants first submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 the doctor, who held the post-mortem examination to the effect that the death was homicidal should not be accepted. He has further argued that in view of the report of P.W.2 which did not indicate any fracture on any of the ribs, the post-mortem report disclosing about the fracture of several ribs should be discarded. He has further argued that in view of the report of P.W.2 which did not indicate any fracture on any of the ribs, the post-mortem report disclosing about the fracture of several ribs should be discarded. It has been further argued that since a relation of the deceased was a Nurse in Khurda Government Hospital where the post-mortem examination took place, the report should be rejected as it has been manipulated to suit the purpose of prosecution. It is difficult to accept such contention of the counsel for the appellants, specially in view of the categorical statement of P.W.3 denying such suggestion. The doctor, P.W.2 who had initially treated the deceased, might not have tried to find out about the fracture specially in view of the condition in which the deceased was brought to the hospital as well as in view of the fact that at that point of time there was no such allegation. Even internal haemorrhage and shock may lead to cardiac respiratory failure and as such it cannot be said that the evidence of two doctors are mutually contradictory. In existence of fracture as deposed to by P.W.3 cannot be discarded as such. 6. The prosecution evidence relating to the occurrence, however, if analysed carefully gives rise to several doubts regarding the actual incident. P.Ws.1 and 5 in unison claimed that the four appellants trampled upon the deceased. The prosecution evidence however, reveals that after the incident the deceased went by himself to the Outpost. If in fact, the injuries would have been caused by such trampling which appears to have ruptured his spleen, the deceased would not have been in a position to proceed to the Outpost which was about a distance of 500 yards as spoken to by P.W.1 in her evidence. As a matter of fact, P.W.3 has stated that:- "...Instantly the injury on the spleen appears to be fatal. The collection of blood in the chest cavity as noted above would also lead to instantaneous death..." From the aforesaid medical evidence it becomes clear that the persecution case that the deceased was trampled upon simultaneously by the four appellants, and yet he proceeded towards the Outpost by walking, is highly improbable. The collection of blood in the chest cavity as noted above would also lead to instantaneous death..." From the aforesaid medical evidence it becomes clear that the persecution case that the deceased was trampled upon simultaneously by the four appellants, and yet he proceeded towards the Outpost by walking, is highly improbable. On the other hand, P.Ws.5 and 6 have stated that while the deceased was proceeding towards the Outpost, he had fallen down repeatedly and ultimately he had also fallen on the verandah of the Outpost and became unconscious. It is quite possible that the deceased might have broken his ribs while falling down repeatedly. 7. The very fact that the prosecution has not chosen to examine any other witness though many villagers were present at the spot at the time of the occurrence, lends credence to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution witnesses tried to falsely implicate the appellants. If the deceased was actually severely trampled upon as claimed by the prosecution witnesses, they would not have allowed him to proceed towards the police station and they themselves would have accompanied him to the Government Dispensary. It is true that P.W.6 claimed that she had followed her son, the deceased, to the Outpost. However, her version regarding the occurrence clearly indicates that she was a post-occurrence witness and as such her evidence has been discarded by the trial Court. There was dispute between the member of the family of the deceased and the acquitted accused, who had hired the present appellants as labourers to cut bamboo clumps. In view of such inimical background, between the prosecution witnesses and the acquitted accused who had been charged under Sections 302/109, I.P.C., the non-examination of the other villagers who were admittedly present at the time of occurrence creates grave doubt regarding the prosecution version regarding the simultaneous trampling upon the deceased by the four appellants. It appears that the prosecution has presented a highly exaggerated version and it would be unsafe to accept such evidence in toto to come to a conclusion that the death was only due to trampling upon the deceased by the four appellants. However, the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 5 to the effect that there was tussle between the four appellants and the deceased is acceptable. However, the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 5 to the effect that there was tussle between the four appellants and the deceased is acceptable. Since it cannot be said beyond all reasonable doubt that the fractures were caused due to their alleged trampling and not by repeated falls of the deceased on the ground while he was proceeding towards the Outpost, it would be unsafe to convict the appellants of having committed another offence except one under Section 323, I.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the appellants are convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. It seems that the appellants in custody for a fairly long period during the investigation and trial before being released on bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place more than twelve years back, I consider that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants will meet the ends of justice. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Final Result : Allowed