JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.1981 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicting the accused-appellant-Jassa Singh of offence under section 304 Part-II and appellant No. 2 Jogendra Singh of offence under section 304 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentencing both of them to 5 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment, to further undergo 3 months R.I. 2. The prosecution case is that on 5.7.1980 at about 1.30 p.m. Mr. M.P. Aggarwal, Medical Officer & Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Sri Karanpur informed the SHO Police Station, Sri Karanpur that one person Jaggar Singh, aged 60 years has been brought in injured condition by Nakchhatra Singh, Pritam Singh injured is critical. Mr. Murlidhar, SHO along with Head Constable rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of Gurudayal Singh vide Ex. P/13. The said witness stated that the deceased Jaggar Singh was his brother in law and house of the deceased and that of the appellant are just in front of each other. He also stated that 2 days prior to the date of incident, the accused Jassa Singh climbed on the wall of the house of Jaggar Singh through the house of one Shri Ishwar Singh and he was looking towards house of Jaggar Singh where Mst. Sukhdeokaur wife of Nakchhatra Singh S/o Jaggar Singh was sitting. It is alleged that the accused looked at the lady with sinister gesture. Upon this, Sukhdeokaur abused Jassa Singh. The matter was reported by Sukhdeokaur to her father-in- law Jaggar Singh, who called the Panchayat, in which, the conduct of Jassa Singh was discussed. Balkar, father of the accused Jassa Singh tendered apology on his behalf. On 5.7.1980 at about 10.45 a.m. Jassa Singh armed with Kassi and Jogendra Singh armed with Kassia came infront of house of Jaggar Singh and abused him. It is alleged that Jassa Singh inflicted Kassi blow on the right hand of Jaggar Singh and Jogendra Singh gave Kassi blow on his forehead. He was immediately brought to the hospital, where he died. On this information, Police registered a case of offence under sections 302, 302/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and laid charge-sheet against accused persons for the aforesaid offences. 3. Both the appellants were charged under sections 302, 302/34 IPC. The appellants denied charge and claimed trial. He was immediately brought to the hospital, where he died. On this information, Police registered a case of offence under sections 302, 302/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation and laid charge-sheet against accused persons for the aforesaid offences. 3. Both the appellants were charged under sections 302, 302/34 IPC. The appellants denied charge and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of case, examined number of witnesses and also produced certain documents. Relying on the testimony of PW 7 Sukhdeokaur and PW 9 Gurudayal Singh, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons of the charge of murder, but convicted for the offence culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304(11) IPC. 4. Assailing the judgment of the trial Court, it is contended by Mr. M.R. Garg learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants. It is submitted that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW 7 Sukhdeokaur and PW 9 Gurudayal. In alternate, it is submitted that none of the injury has been found to be grievous in nature. The doctor has not said that the injuries were sufficient in nature to cause murder. In view of this and the fact that the deceased died on account of excessive bleeding, the conviction cannot travel beyond Section 324 IPC. He places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1969 Unreported Judgment SC 598. On the other hand, Mr. Panney Singh, Addl. P.P. submits that the testimony of Sukhdeokaur PW 7 and Gurudayal PW 9 is natural, trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. With respect to the alternate arguments, it is submitted that excessive bleeding, which is cause of death is the direct result of the injury No. 2, caused by the appellant-Jassa Singh. He further submits that the accused-Jogendra Singh shared common intention with Jassa Singh and, therefore, he has also been rightly convicted of offence under section 304 Part-II r/w Section 34 IPC. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. I have carefully gone through the statement of eye-witnesses PW 7 Sukhdeokaur and PW 9 Gurudayal. It is not necessary to re-state their statements. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. I have carefully gone through the statement of eye-witnesses PW 7 Sukhdeokaur and PW 9 Gurudayal. It is not necessary to re-state their statements. It is suffice to say that learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out even a single reason as to why their statement should not be believed. Both the witnesses have very categorically stated that Jassa Singh gave a Kassi blow on the deceased Jaggar Singh and the accused-Jogendra Singh gave a Kassia blow on the deceased. Their statements finds corroboration by the medical evidence. PW 1 Dr. M.P. Aggarwal conducted the autopsy. He has proved the post-mortem report Ex. 1. He noticed following injuries on the body of deceased Jaggar Singh:- " I . Incised wound shaped on the left side of forehead. Shorter limb 11/2" and longer limb 3" in length, (examined after removing stitches which were applied in PHC). Flap was raised downwards. Breadth was 1/2" and depth was bone deep, simple, sharp. 2. Incised wound (Oblique) 51/2" x 11/4" x elbow joint deep. Curule of the joint not cut) (examined after removing stitches which were applied in the PHC) on the interior aspect of right elbow with stitches which all the soft tissues including were muscles, veins and arteries are completely cut. The brachial artery is also completely cut. Nerves are also completely cut. Grievous, sharp. 6. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was massive haemorrhage from the wound on right elbow from major blood vessels leading to severe shock and death. Having seen the post-mortem report, I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Garg learned counsel for the appellants. Appellant-Jassa Singh has caused injury by deadly weapon like Kassi. The incident alleged to have taken place at 10.45 a.m. and he died at about 1.00 p.m. i.e. within 21/2 hours. Thus, in my view the injury caused by the accused-Jassa Singh was the direct cause of homicidal death of Jaggar Singh. The decision of the Apex Court cited by the learned counsel, also does not advance his case. I have gone through the said case. Gani Gulab Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 1969 SC Unreported Judgment 598 , the accused pushed the deceased, on account of which he fell down on the road and his occipital bone got fractured. The decision of the Apex Court cited by the learned counsel, also does not advance his case. I have gone through the said case. Gani Gulab Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 1969 SC Unreported Judgment 598 , the accused pushed the deceased, on account of which he fell down on the road and his occipital bone got fractured. The Court also noticed that perhaps due to the drunken condition of the deceased, while falling, he could not avoid his skull falling on the road. In these circumstances, the Court held that it is difficult to say that the death was result of push alleged to have been given by the accused. In the instant case both the accused persons arrived on the spot with deadly weapons. The Kasia blow was given with a force, resulting into injuries, to which deceased succumbed within 21/2 hours. Thus, the appellants can be posted with the knowledge that their act is likely to cause death of Jaggar Singh. Though, the injury caused by the accused-Jogender is not the direct result but the circumstances in which the incident has taken place, clearly demonstrate that he shared common intention with the accused Jassa Singh. Thus, in my view, the conviction of both the appellants of offence under sections 304 & 304/34 IPC is justified and the same is hereby confirmed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the point of sentence. It is pointed out that Jassa Singh had already undergone sentence of more than 11/2 years whereas Jogendra Singh had undergone sentence of 4 months R.I. It is also stated that relations between the two families are now cordial. The accused-Jassa Singh was 17 years of age at the time of incident. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that each of the accused caused only 1 injury and they did not repeat the blow and as such it cannot be said that they have anyway acted in accrual manner and the fact that the incident is of year 1980, the end of justice would meet if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in case of both the appellants. However, both the appellants should be saddled with the payment of compensation to legal heirs of deceased-Jaggar Singh. The compensation is assessed to Rs. However, both the appellants should be saddled with the payment of compensation to legal heirs of deceased-Jaggar Singh. The compensation is assessed to Rs. 10,000/, 8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed, while confirming the conviction of the appellant-Jassa Singh of offence under section 304 Part-II IPC and conviction of the appellant-accused- Jogendra Singh of offence under section 304/34 IPC. Sentence of both the accused-appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant-Jassa Singh will deposit sum of Rs. 7,000/- as compensation and the appellant-Jogendra Singh will deposit sum of Rs. 3,000/-. The amount shall be deposited before the trial Court. Four months' time is granted for depositing the amount. The amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of Jaggar Singh. In case the amount of compensation is not deposited within the stipulated period, the order of reducing the sentence shall stand vacated and the sentence awarded shall stand confirmed.Appeal partly allowed. *******