JUDGMENT : 1. There are 8 accused respondents. Amongst them, Pal Singh and Kirpal Singh are brothers. Three sons of Kirpal Singh, namely, Baldev Singh, Resham Singh and Mukhtiar Singh are part of the group; whereas the three sons of Pal Singh, namely, Balkar Singh, Jang Bahadur Singh and Jagtar Singh also are part of the group. They were charged by the Court of Session for offences under Section 148, 302/149 Indian Penal Code for rioting and murder as well as for lesser offences involving grievous and simple hurts. The Court of Session convicted them of the charges but the High Court on appeal acquitted them which has given rise to this appeal at the instance of the State of Punjab. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15-7-85 at about 7.30 p.m., Amrik Singh, P.W. and his brother Darshan Singh, deceased, were heading towards their fields. Behind them were following Jagir Singh and Kashmir Singh, PWs. At a particular point on the way, all the accused respondents - 8 in number - emerged from behind a Bandh. Kirpal Singh, respondent, raised an exhortation that Darshan Singh be not allowed to escape. Upon this, Pal Singh, respondent, opened an attack and rest of the respondents followed suit in giving injuries to the deceased as well as to Jagir Singh and Kashmir Singh, PWs. All the 8 accused respondents had been variously armed with lethal weapons such as spears, hatchets and sticks; details whereof are available in the judgments of the Courts below. At the end of infliction of injuries, it was found that Darshan Singh had died and Jagir Singh and Kashmir Singh were in receipt of extensive injuries. After some time, Sukhdev Singh and Baldev Singh, PWs. came and removed the injured persons to the house of Amrik Singh, PW, wherefrom they were later removed to the hospital for medical treatment. On the following morning, Amrik Singh set out for police station to lodge a report but having met Gurjinder Pal Singh, ASI, on the way he gave him a statement at 6.05 a.m. on 16-7-85 which became the basis of the formal FIR. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the mortuary for autopsy. Other investigatory steps were taken. As a result of disclosure statements made by the accused-respondents, the weapons of the offence were recovered. Thereafter, they were put to trial. 3. Dr. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the mortuary for autopsy. Other investigatory steps were taken. As a result of disclosure statements made by the accused-respondents, the weapons of the offence were recovered. Thereafter, they were put to trial. 3. Dr. Sarwan Singh, PW-3, found on Kashmir Singh and Jagir Singh as many as 13 and 11 injuries respectively. One injury on the person of Kashmir Singh was found to be grievous in nature and rest of them were simple. Likewise one injury was found on the person of Jagir Singh to be grievous and the rest simple. The autopsy conducted on the dead body of the deceased by Dr. Pritpal Kaur, PW-1, revealed that he had as many as 11 injuries but none of them was on any vital part of the body; those being on the arms and legs of the deceased. One injury on his lips, however, was non-significant. The cause of death as opined by Dr. Pritpal Kaur, PW-1, was shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries which were considered sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined Amrik Singh, Jagir Singh and Kashmir Singh as eye-witnesses to the incident. They were given credence by the Court of Session but disbelieved by the High Court only on the ground that Amrik Singh was a shady character as he had association with Police and his conduct was unnatural in not having visited the injured person at the hospital, Jagir Singh and Kashmir Singh, PWs. were disbelieved by the High Court on the ground that there were some discrepancies in the matching of the injuries on them with the blows said to have been inflicted by particular accused. The overall view taken by the High Court was that since the FIR was belated and there were other attending circumstances to doubt the prosecution case, it was prudent to acquit the accused respondents. The High Court did not give any reason as to why Jagir Singh and Kashmir Singh be disbelieved when they were stamped witnesses of the occurrence. 5. We have been taken through the evidence led by the prosecution. It appears somewhat strange to us that all the PWs. have given the details of infliction of blows by each accused to the deceased and to the PWs. in sequence. 5. We have been taken through the evidence led by the prosecution. It appears somewhat strange to us that all the PWs. have given the details of infliction of blows by each accused to the deceased and to the PWs. in sequence. It appears rather odd that the PWs. would be having such a photographic memory so as to recount each and every blow given by the accused. Even so, there is no ground to doubt the prosecution version as to its origin and substance) involving all the accused respondents in causing death of Darshan Singh, deceased, and inflicting injuries on PWs. Jagir Singh and Kashmir Singh. Even if we were to scrutinise, the evidence of Amrik Singh, the first informant, with utmost strictness, it can at best be that he may not have been able to give the vivid account of infliction of injuries in the FIR as done. His presence otherwise at the spot cannot be doubted and least of all that of Kashmir Singh and Jagir Singh PWs. Thus, we are of the considered view that the High Court committed an error in doubting the substantial version of the eye-witnesses insofar as the participation of all the 8 accused was concerned in attaining the result afore known. 6. Having decided to hold the accused respondents responsible for the incident and the crime committed, the next question which crops up for considerations : what offence(s) have they committed. The guidance in that regard is available from the medical evidence. It is plain therefrom that none of the 11 injuries caused on the deceased was by itself sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and none of those injuries as said before, was inflicted on a vital part of the body. All the same, the cumulative effect of the injuries did bring about the result of the death of the deceased and the accused respondents could well be ascribed the guilty knowledge that their assault on the deceased could bring them within the grip of Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, instead of restoring the conviction of the Court of Session under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code convict the accused respondents for offence under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, for which we sentence them to 5 years' RI each. We, therefore, instead of restoring the conviction of the Court of Session under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code convict the accused respondents for offence under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, for which we sentence them to 5 years' RI each. The other convictions and sentences as passed by the Court of Session for lesser offences under Sections 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 323/149 etc. would stand restored and be running concurrently with the sentence as we have now imposed for offence under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code. Ordered accordingly while allowing the appeal. The accused respondents are directed to surrender to serve out the remaining portion of their un-served sentences forthwith. Order accordingly.