JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 10.4.96 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali convicting the appellants Narpat Singh and Kishan Singh for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case is disclosed during trial is that the appellants Kishan Singh, Narpart Singh and deceased Ratan Singh were the real brothers. About twenty years back, appellant Kishan Singh developed illicit relation with one Mst. Pokri widow of Tola Ram. This was opposed by the family members and, as such, he left the village Korta and started residing with the said lady at Sumerpur. During his absence, the land of his share was being cultivated by the deceased Ratan Singh. Sometime back, Mst. Hema died. After her death, appellant Kishan Singh returned to village Karta and asked Ratan Singh to return the land. It is alleged that on 16.4.94, appellant Kishan Singh went to the field known as 'Bera Parava'. He collected some of the villagers and asked for measurement of the field and make a division of the Same. This was being opposed by Ratan Singh. It is alleged that Narpart Singh struck a lathi below on the legs of Ratan Singh and threw him on the ground. After Ratan Singh had fallen on the ground, appellant Kishan Singh inflicted kulhari blow on him on account of which he died on the spot. The information of the incident was lodged with the Police Station, Sumerpur by the second appellant Narpat Singh. On this information, police registered a case for the offence under sections 302, 302/34 IPC and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, police laid a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under sections 302, 302/34 IPC. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them. The prosecution in support of the case examined 21 witnesses. In their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. The trial court relying on the testimony of the eye witnesses namely PW. 3 Kundan Singh, P.W. 8 Mufa, PW. 10 Sakha Ram, PW. 15 Hukam Singh, PW. In their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. The trial court relying on the testimony of the eye witnesses namely PW. 3 Kundan Singh, P.W. 8 Mufa, PW. 10 Sakha Ram, PW. 15 Hukam Singh, PW. 19 Phula Ram and RW.,20 Himta Ram corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of incriminating articles, held the appellants guilty of murder of Ratan Singh and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellants as noticed above. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. M.L. Garg and the learned public Prosecutor and also Mr. Kumbhat, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully. 4. PW. 2 Dr. Takhat Singh Rajpurohit has stated that on 17.4.94, he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of deceased Ratan Singh and found the following injuries on his person : "1. Injuries on Head : (i) Incised wound on Right parietal occipital region 6x2 1/2 cm. cutting underneath skull bone; (ii) incised wound on Left parietal temporal region 7x3 cm. Fracture compound underneath skull bone exposing brain matter; (iii) Oblique incised wound on frontal region 5x2 1/2 cm. deep upto skull bone; (iv) Incised wound on Left parietal region. Compound fracture underneath parietal bone exposing the brain matter; (v) Incised wound on nose at the base (cutting nasal bone and right maxillary bone underneath) 5x1 1/2 x 2 cm; (vi) Incised wound on pinna or right ear 2x1; (vii) Incised wound on Right side neck oblique; 2. Injuries on Neck; (i) Incised wound on neck below mandible 5x4 cm. and 5 cm. deep cutting thyroid, Glottis and trachea; (ii) Incised wound on neck below the No 1 wound 31/2 x 4 cm. cutting trachea; (iii) Incised wound on neck below No. 2 Injury 41/2 x 31/2cm cutting trachea; 3. (i) Incised wound on right glutaeal region 4 x 1 1/2 cm; (ii) Laceration on right clevicular region; (iii) Bruise with abrasion on Lt. side chest 51/2 x 11/2 cm; (iv) Laceration on right elbow region 2 x 11/2; (v) Laceration on back of chest on right scapular region 31/2 x 11/2 cm; (vi) Incised wound on the back of the chest and neck and scapular region oblique 7 x 41/2 x4 deep; 4. side chest 51/2 x 11/2 cm; (iv) Laceration on right elbow region 2 x 11/2; (v) Laceration on back of chest on right scapular region 31/2 x 11/2 cm; (vi) Incised wound on the back of the chest and neck and scapular region oblique 7 x 41/2 x4 deep; 4. Fracture : Dislocation of upper 2/2⅔.1' He has proved the post mortem report Ex.R 8. In his opinion, the cause of death was multiple fatal injuries. He also stated that injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He particularly mentioned that injuries No. 1,2,4,7,8 and 9 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The said injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. Thus, it is proved that deceased Ratan Singh died of homicidal death. 5. PW. 3 Kundan Singh has stated that his field is adjacent to the field of appellants Kishan Singh, Narpat Singh and deceased Ratan Singh. Narrating the incident, he also stated that appeiiant Kishan Singh Is unmarried. About twenty years back, he kept the wife of Tola Ram Meghwal in his house. She was a widow. This was being objected by the villagers, as such, Kishan Singh with Mst. Pokri left the village and started residing at Sumerpur. In his absence, the field known as 'Bera Parava' was being cultivated by Ratan Singh. After the death of Mst. Pokri, appellant Kishan Singh returned to village Korta. He started living with his brother Narpat Singh. However, a dispute ensued between the deceased Ratan Singh on the one hand and Kishan Singh and Narpat Singh on the other hand. On 16.4.94 at about 5.30 RM., appellant Kishan Singh gave a call to the villagers. In response, PW. 15 Hukum Singh, PW. 9 Chatra Ram, PW. 10 Sakha Ram, Phula Ram and Roopa Ram etc. assembled, Mst. Pepi was cutting grass in the field. Appellant Kishan Singh asked for measurement and distribution of land. But this was objected by Ratan Singh on the ground that as he owed some money in him, dispute in that regard should be settled first. Ratan Singh left the field and proceeded towards the village Gua. The appellants followed him. At a distance of 20-25 ft., second appellant Narpat Singh gave a lathi blow on the knee of Ratan Singh. He was thrown on the ground. Ratan Singh left the field and proceeded towards the village Gua. The appellants followed him. At a distance of 20-25 ft., second appellant Narpat Singh gave a lathi blow on the knee of Ratan Singh. He was thrown on the ground. Thereafter, Kishan Singh arrived and gave repeated kulhari blows to Ratan Singh. Thereafter, he left, Ratan Singh died on the spot. 6. Other eye witnesses viz; PW. 15 Hukum Singh, PW. 8 Mufa, PW. 10 Sakha Ram, PW. 19 Phula Ram and PW. 20 Himta have also given statements almost in the same line. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve any of these witnesses. The witnesses are from different villages belonging to different castes. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. The statements of these witnesses are corroborated by the medical evidence. All the witnesses have stated that Kishan Singh gave repeated kulhari blows to Ratan Singh. There were number of injuries on the body of deceased Ratan Singh, caused by sharp edged weapon. It is of-course true that both the appellants have also sustained injures. The injury reports Ex.D. 1 and Ex.D. 2 have been placed have been on record. All the injuries are simple in nature. Simply because, the appellants have also sustained some minor injures, there Is no reason to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses. Thus, there is overwhelming evidence that appellant Kishan Singh gave repeated kulhari blows to deceased Ratan Singh on account of which he died on the spot. Thus, the trial court has rightly convicted him for the offence under section 302 IPC. 7. As records the second appellant Narpat Singh, all the eye witnesses have stated that Narpat Singh gave a lathi blow on the knee of Ratan Singh. The medical evidence shows that there are simple injuries caused by blunt object on the person of deceased Ratan Singh. It is of-course true that there is no injury caused by blunt object on knee. However, there is consistent evidence of all the eye witnesses that Narpat Singh struck a lathi blow on the legs of deceased Ratan Singh. After he had caused injuries, first appellant Kishan Singh gave repeated kulhari blows. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant Narpat Singh acted in furtherance of the common intention to kill Ratan Singh or in any way, he shared the common intention with Kishan Singh. After he had caused injuries, first appellant Kishan Singh gave repeated kulhari blows. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant Narpat Singh acted in furtherance of the common intention to kill Ratan Singh or in any way, he shared the common intention with Kishan Singh. Thus, apparently, his conviction under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is not sustainable. However, he is guilty of causing simple injuries by blunt object punishable under section 323 IPC. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal filed by accused Narpat Singh being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 276/1996 is partly allowed. His conviction for the offence u/s. 302/34 is set aside. He is convicted for the offence u/s. 323 IPC. He has already undergone sentence of about four months. His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 293/1996 filed by accused Kishan Singh is dismissed. His conviction under Section 302 IPC is maintained. He is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence.Appeal No. 293 of 1996 is dismissed. *******