R.Balasubramanian, J.: When the appeal was filed, there were two appellants on record. They are A-1 and A-2 in S.C.No.57 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Madras. Pending appeal, A-1/the first appellant died. In support of his death, the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side has produced before this Court, an authenticated copy of the death extract relating to the first accused issued by the Health Department of the Corporation of Chennai. The said death extract shall form part of the record. Inasmuch, as A-1 is reported dead, the appeal, as far as it relates to A-1 stands dismissed as abated. Therefore, the appeal survives only as far as A-2 is concerned. For convenience sake, we will refer to the surviving appellant in this judgment in the same rank in which order he was arrayed in the Sessions Case. A-2 stands convicted along with A-1 for an offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. A-3 to A-6 who were also tried for offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.149, I.P.C. were acquitted on merits. There were other offences for which all the accused were also tried and except the conviction of A-1 and A-2 as referred to above, all the other charges were found against the State. Heard Mr.T.Sudanthiram, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the State. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is to the following effect: The deceased in this case is a male by name Veera alias Veerasekaran. P.W.1 is his elder sister. P.W.1’s husband is Sathasivam. However, they are not living together. P.W.1, her grandmother and P.W.1’s children along with Veerasekaran were living together. Veerasekaran was unemployed. He had developed friendship with A-1 and was committing petty thefts. He was also involving himself in regular street fights. P.W.1 advised Veerasekaran, on more than one occasion, not to have friendship with A-1. Accordingly, Veerasekaran parted the company of A-1 and started making his livelihood by driving an autorickshaw. P.W.3 is the younger sister of P.W.1. She, with her husband Nandagopalan, was residing in another tenement of the adjoining block, where P.W.1 was residing. P.W.3 was aged about 18 years. A-1 developed friendship with P.W.3. P.W.1 and Veerasekaran reprimanded A-1 for developing friendship with P.W.3. From that time onwards, A-1 stopped talking to P.W.3. P.W.3 is the younger sister of P.W.1. She, with her husband Nandagopalan, was residing in another tenement of the adjoining block, where P.W.1 was residing. P.W.3 was aged about 18 years. A-1 developed friendship with P.W.3. P.W.1 and Veerasekaran reprimanded A-1 for developing friendship with P.W.3. From that time onwards, A-1 stopped talking to P.W.3. A-1 also had developed strained relationship with Veerasekaran from that time onwards. The occurrence was on 20.2.1991. Even one week prior to that, A-1 with his associates was moving around the residential area in search of Veerasekaran. P.W.2 is the mistress of Veerasekaran. At 10.30 a.m. on 20.2.1991, P.W.1, Veerasekaran and P.W.2 went to buy fish from the market. They were passing the house of P.W.3 at that time. P.W.3 also gave a sum of Rs.5 to them asking them to buy fish for her. The witnesses, after buying fish were returning home. At that time, they saw A-1 to A-6 coming in the opposite direction. A-1 and A-2 were each armed with a knife at that time. On seeing them, Veerasekaran ran for safety. All the accused chased him. They were able to intercept him and A-1 cut on the leg of Veerasekaran which made him fall down on his face. A-3 to A-6 surrounded Veerasekaran and thereby prevented him from running away. A-1 and A-2 cut on the legs and hands of Veerasekaran indiscriminately. P.Ws.1 and 2 were at a distance of 10 feet. After inflicting injuries on Veerasekaran, all the accused ran away. P.Ws.1 and 2 went near Veerasekaran where they found that the index finger and the middle finger of right hand of Veerasekaran had been severed and they were lying on the ground. They transported Veerasekaran in an autorickshaw to the Government Hospital at Royapettah. They also produced the two severed fingers of Veerasekaran in the hospital. The Medical Officer on duty advised them to take Veerasekaran to the Government Stanley Hospital. P.Ws.1 and 2 travelled in the same autorickshaw to Stanley Hospital along with the injured. There also, they produced the two severed fingers. It was around 12.30 p.m. on that day. 3. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer. When he was at the police station on 20.2.1991, he received a message over telephone around 11.30 a.m. on that day that an occurrence had taken place at the scene of occurrence. There also, they produced the two severed fingers. It was around 12.30 p.m. on that day. 3. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer. When he was at the police station on 20.2.1991, he received a message over telephone around 11.30 a.m. on that day that an occurrence had taken place at the scene of occurrence. Immediately, along with police constables, he went there where he found a large number of people had gathered. It was around 11.50 a.m. Coming to know about the occurrence, he reached the Government Hospital at Royapettah from where he came to know that Veerasekaran was advised to be taken to the Stanley Hospital. Accordingly, he reached the Government Stanley Hospital at about 1.30 p.m. on that day. He left the constables taken by him at the scene of occurrence itself to protect the whole area. In the Stanley Hospital, he found Veerasekaran taking treatment in an unconscious state. He examined P.W.1, his sister and recorded her statement. Ex.P-1 is the complaint signed by P.W.1. P.W.12 came back to the police station around 2.30 p.m. and registered Ex.P-1 in Crime No.68/91 for offences under Secs.147, 148, 341 and 326, I.P.C. Ex.P-17 is the printed First Information Report. At 2.45 p.m., he went back to the Government Stanley Hospital and examined P.Ws.1 to 3. Noticing that P.Ws.1 and 2 had not come back for quite a long time from the market, P.W.3 went in search of them. At that time, she saw A-1 to A-4 and A-6 running in Model School Road. She also noticed that A-1 and A-2 were each armed with a knife. They stopped the autorickshaw coming that side driven by P.W.7. They forced the passenger in the autorickshaw to alight and after boarding the autorickshaw, they commanded P.W.7 to drive the autorickshaw towards Kodambakkam. P.W.7 accordingly drove the autorickshaw towards Kodambakkam. Near the overbridge at Kodambakkam, the accused told P.W.7 to stop the autorickshaw; alighted from the autorickshaw and left after giving a sum of Rs.10 to P.W.7. P.W.7, after some hesitation, went to the police station around 2.45 p.m. that day and informed P.W.12, the police officer about what happened. Dhanasekaran, the brother of Veerasekaran, produced M.Os.6 and 7, the blood-stained personal wearing apparel of Veerasekaran at the police station which were recovered under Ex.P-16. 4. P.W.7, after some hesitation, went to the police station around 2.45 p.m. that day and informed P.W.12, the police officer about what happened. Dhanasekaran, the brother of Veerasekaran, produced M.Os.6 and 7, the blood-stained personal wearing apparel of Veerasekaran at the police station which were recovered under Ex.P-16. 4. P.W.3, who saw the accused boarding the autorickshaw of P.W.7 and going away, went further and saw a huge crowd in 8th Street. She came to know that Veerasekaran had been injured and he had been taken to the hospital by P.Ws.1 and 2. Accordingly, she ultimately reached the Government Stanley Hospital around 2 p.m. At 3.15 p.m. in the 8th Street, P.W.12 recovered M.Os.2 and 5 from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P-12 attested by P.W.8 and another. Ex.P-19 is the plan prepared by him. In the presence of the same witnesses, he also recovered M.Os.2, 3, 4 and 5 under Ex.P-13. P.W.12 searched for the accused. However, they were absconding. 5. Veerasekaran succumbed to the injuries at the hospital at 4.10 p.m. Around 8.45 p.m. on that day, the death intimation of Veerasekaran reached the police station. P.W.13 altered the Section of offence into one under Sec.302, I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P-20, the altered express First Information Report and sent through the same police constable to the Court. At 9 p.m., P.W.1 appeared at the police station and produced the blood-stained saree M.O.1 which was recovered under Ex.P-2. The Investigating Officer, thereafter went to the scene of occurrence and examined further witnesses and recorded their statements. At 11 p.m., he examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and recorded their statements. The accused were absconding. At 7.45 a.m. on 21.2.1991, P.W.13 went to the Government Hospital along with P.Ws.9 and 12 and caused photographs of the body of the deceased to be taken. In the presence of Panchayatdhars, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased at 9.50 a.m. Ex.P-21 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 3. 6. Through P.W.9, he sent Ex.P-3, the requisition to the hospital for conducting post-mortem, on the body of the deceased. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.5, did post-mortem on the body of the deceased. During post-mortem, she found the following symptoms: “External injuries with corresponding internal injuries: I. Deep incised wound outer aspect of right wrist 6 x 3 cms. cutting skin, fascia and bone. II. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.5, did post-mortem on the body of the deceased. During post-mortem, she found the following symptoms: “External injuries with corresponding internal injuries: I. Deep incised wound outer aspect of right wrist 6 x 3 cms. cutting skin, fascia and bone. II. Chopped wound right hand cutting index and middle finger and causing incised wound of ring and little finger (1 x 2 cms). The terminal part of index and middle finger are severed from the hand. III. Incised wound on the base of right great toe cutting skin, tendons and bone 5 x 3 cms. IV. Chopped wound left elbow joints (9 x 9 x 2 cms.) cutting skin muscle, blood vessels (Brachial artery) and bones exposing the elbow joints. V. Incised wound outer aspect of left forearm. 4 cms. below the previous injury 4 x 2 cms. cutting skin muscle and bone. VI. Incised wound adjacent to the previous injury 6 x 2.5 cms cutting skin, muscle and bone. VII. Incised wound 3 cms. above the left writ joint 1.5 x 1 cm skin deep. VIII. Incised wound dorsum of left hand on the ring and little finger 5 x 0.5 cm. skin deep. IX. Incised wound middle of left leg 2 x 0.5 cm skin deep. X. Incised wound left leg 6 cms. above the ankle joint. 6 x 2 cms. cutting skin tendons and bone. XI. Incised wound dorsum of left foot above ankle joint 5 x 4 cms. cutting skin, facia blood vessels and bone. XII. Incised wound on the other aspect of dorsum of left foot 4 x 1 cm. cutting skin, muscie and bone. On dissection: Heart. All chambers empty. Lungs: Pale. Stomach: Contained 100 gms. of semi-digested food particles. Mucosa: Pale, Liver, Spleen & Kidneys: Pale, Bladder: Empty Brain: Pale.” Ex.P-4 is the postmortem certificate. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to lave died on severe haemorrhae and shock as a result of multiple injuries. P.W.10 examined Veerasekaran at about 12.45 p.m. on 20.2.91. The condition of Veerasekaran was precarious. P.W.10 noticed the following symptoms during examination: “Injuries: 1.6 cm x 4 cm lacerated bone deep Left elbow. 2. 5 cm x 3 cm. lacerated wound - Left elbow 3. 5 cm x 3 cm. Lacerated above the Left ambs. 4. 4 cm x 2 cm. lacerated right foot. 5. The condition of Veerasekaran was precarious. P.W.10 noticed the following symptoms during examination: “Injuries: 1.6 cm x 4 cm lacerated bone deep Left elbow. 2. 5 cm x 3 cm. lacerated wound - Left elbow 3. 5 cm x 3 cm. Lacerated above the Left ambs. 4. 4 cm x 2 cm. lacerated right foot. 5. Cut injury involving all fagers of right hand. 6. Cut injury involving the palm left. 7. 5 cm x 2 cm. lacertated wound over right wrist.” Ex.P-14 is the Accident Register. P.W.11 is another Medical Officer in the same hospital. He was in charge of Ward No.9. Veerasekaran was sent by P.W.10 to that ward. Inspite of intensive treatment given to Veerasekaran, he died at 4.10 p.m. on that day. Ex.P-15 is the case sheet relating to Veerasekaran and Ex.P-16 is the death intimation. 7. P.W.6 is the Magisterial Clerk. The case properties were received in Court and kept in safe custody. Ex.P-5 is the requisition given by the Investigating Officer to send M.Os.1 to 8 for chemical analysis. As an enclosure to Court’s letter Ex.P-6, the case properties were sent for chemical examination. Pursuant to second requisition Ex.P-7, M.Os.9 and 10 were sent to the laboratory as an enclosure to Court’s letter Ex.P- 8. Exs.P-9 and P-10 are Chemical Examiner’s Reports and Ex.P-11 is the Serologist’s Report. P.W.13 continued the investigation; examined further witnesses and recorded their statements. On information, he arrested A-4 and A-5 at 9.50 a.m. On 22.2.1991 and brought them to the police station. The arrested accused were sent for judicial remand and the case properties were also sent to the Court. He came to know that A-1 to A-3 and A-6 had surrendered in Court on 28.2.1991. He moved the Court for taking police custody of A-1 and A-2. The Police custody was ordered and A-1 and A-2 were brought to the police station. On 2.3.1991, A-1 was examined during which time he gave a confession statement, the admissible portion of which Ex.P-22. A-2 also gave a confession statement at that time. Pursuant to the confession statement of A-1, M.O-9 was recovered under Ex.P-23 attested by witnesses. Pursuant to the confession statement of A-2, M.O-10 was recovered under Ex.P-24 attested by witnesses. The accused were brought back to the police station and later on surrendered in Court. M.Os.9 and 10 were shown to P.W.5 and his statement was recorded. Pursuant to the confession statement of A-1, M.O-9 was recovered under Ex.P-23 attested by witnesses. Pursuant to the confession statement of A-2, M.O-10 was recovered under Ex.P-24 attested by witnesses. The accused were brought back to the police station and later on surrendered in Court. M.Os.9 and 10 were shown to P.W.5 and his statement was recorded. M.Os.9 and 10 were sent to the Court. He examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.7 and recorded their statements. He gave a requisition Ex.P-7 to the Court to send M.Os.9 and 10 to the laboratory. After completing investigation, he filed the final report against the accused in Court on 27.3.1991. When the accused were questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. On the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts. They stated that P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.7 are speaking falsehood. They would add that the case had been foisted upon them. Though they offered to examine witnesses, yet they had not examined any witness. 8. Mr.T.Sudanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the surviving appellant would contend that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is highly artificial and especially, when they are thickly related to the deceased, their evidence could not be accepted at its face value in the absence of corroboration from independent witnesses. There are so many inherent improbabilities in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 which would enable this Court to reject their evidence as not a safe piece of material. The evidence of P.W.3 does not take the case of the prosecution any further. The learned counsel would sum up his arguments by stating that the materials placed by the prosecution against the accused are not good enough to warrant conviction against them. Alternatively, the learned counsel would contend, by taking us through the oral evidence of the Doctor who did postmortem that the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. cannot be sustained. He would elaborate his argument by stating that the medical evidence shows that the death was due to the cumulative effect of the injuries and each injury by itself is not sufficient to cause death. He would elaborate his argument by stating that the medical evidence shows that the death was due to the cumulative effect of the injuries and each injury by itself is not sufficient to cause death. To sustain this argument, learned counsel relies upon two judgments reported in Rama Meru and another v. State of Gujarat, (1992) Crl.L.J. 1265 and Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995)3 Crimes 615. We heard the learned Government counsel on all these points. Learned Government Advocate brought to our notice the decisions reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and another, 1976 S.C.C. Crl. 659 and Nonappa Poojari v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1581. Learned Government counsel relying upon the two judgments referred to above would contend that the conviction of the accused for the offence of murder would be the appropriate conviction. On the truth or otherwise of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned Government counsel would contend that the evidence of the witnesses, though they are related to the deceased, deserves acceptance. 9. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, we perused the entire records. The deceased is the younger brother of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the mistress of the deceased. P.W.3 is the younger sister of P.W.1. 9. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, we perused the entire records. The deceased is the younger brother of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the mistress of the deceased. P.W.3 is the younger sister of P.W.1. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, in substance, shows the following: “The deceased was unemployed; he developed acquaintanceship with A-1; during such friendship, he involved himself in petty thefts and in street fights; P.W.1 did not like that; the deceased accordingly changed for good; the deceased started driving an autorickshaw and was making his livelihood; during the time when the deceased was friendly with A-1, A-1 used to visit the house of P.W.3 and talk with her; P.W.3 is already married; P.W.1 and the deceased did not like A-1 having friendship with P. W.3 and visiting her; therefore, P.W.1 and the deceased told A-1 to stop coming to the house of P.W.3 which he accordingly did; but however, A-1 was annoyed over that fact and he developed strained relationship with the deceased; P.W.1, the deceased and P.W.1’s children are all living together; P.W.1’s husband is not living with her; on the date of occurrence; at about 10.30 a.m., P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased went to the market to buy fish; they passed the house of P.W.3; P.W.3 gave a sum of Rs.5 to them and wanted them to purchase fish for her also; P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased were returning home after buying fish; even one week prior to the occurrence, A-1 and his associates were out for the deceased; when they were returning on the date of occurrence, after buying fish, they saw A-1 to A-6 coming and A-1 and A-2 were each armed with a knife; on seeking the accused coming, the deceased ran for safety; the accused chased him; A-1, to start with, cut on the legs of the deceased and he fell down; A-3 to A-6 surrounded the deceased and prevented him from moving away; A-1 and A-2, thereafter indiscriminately cut on the hands and legs of the deceased, resulting in two fingers on the right hand of the deceased being severed and found lying on the ground; thereafter P.Ws.1 and 2 took the injured to the Government Royapettah Hospital; from there, he was taken to the Government Stanley Hospital; P.W.3, finding that P.Ws.1 and 2 had not returned from the market, went in search of them; on nearing the scene of occurrence, she found a crowd and she came to know that Veerasekaran was assaulted and he had been taken to the hospital; proceeding further, she saw A-1 to A-4 and A-6 coming that side and A-1 and A-2 were each armed with a knife; all the accused escaped in an autorickshaw driven by P.W.7.” 10. We perused the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3. We find that their evidence in chief examination about the manner in which the occurrence had taken 16 place, remains intact without in any way being shattered. In other words, their evidence in chief examination about the crime perpetrated by the accused on the deceased remains thoroughly of the accused, in any event, accused 1 and 2. On going through the evidence, we find no circumstances at all, which would enable us to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore we are in entire agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 establishes the facts referred to earlier, namely, P.Ws.1 and 2 being eye witnesses to the occurrence and P.W.3 seeking the accused in a different place, moving away with A-1 and A-2 armed. The evidence of P.W.5, the Doctor, who did post mortem and Ex.P-4, the post mortem certificate, establish beyond doubt that the deceased died due to homicidal violence. Under these circumstances, we see no reason at all to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge that the deceased was done to death by A-1 and A-2, sharing a common intention. 11. Going by the nature of events that had taken place, as spoken to by prosecution witnesses 1 and 2 till the deceased was attacked, we have no doubt in our mind that A-1 and A-2 had definitely shared a common intention among themselves. The violent manner in which the deceased was attacked, the incisive nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and the violent force used by A-1 and A-2 speak volumes about their common intention to kill the deceased. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant would invite our attention to the oral evidence of P.W.5, the Doctor who did postmortem on the body of the deceased and contend that the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. To consider this issue, we extract hereunder, the relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.5 regarding the cause of death. “In the ordinary course of event, due to loss of blood from the injuries sustained, shock and haemorrhage, death would be the result; injuries found on the deceased is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary nature of event.” - evidence in chief examination: “The death should have been due to shock and haemorrhage and loss of blood from the injuries sustained; each injury noticed on him is not sufficient to cause death by itself.”- evidence in cross examination. 12. In the context of the above medical evidence, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in Rama Meru v. State of Gujarat, 1992 Crl.L.J. 1265. The facts in that case show that the deceased was dealt with knife blows and also with lathe blows. The deceased was also injured by gun shots and the victim died on the spot. The medical evidence available in that case was to the following effect. Individually, none of the injuries was sufficient to cause death but the death had occurred on account of multiple injuries inflicted on the deceased. On that medical evidence, the Honourable Supreme Court of India held as follows: “5. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced in the proceedings, it appears to us that P.W.5, Jitubhai, a police constable, is a principal eye-witness in the case. The said Jitubhai did not see either of the appellants to inflict any knife injury. He had only said that Nathu Ramsi gave knife blows to the deceased and as a matter of fact when he tried to prevent, he himself was injured by the knife by Nathu Ramsi. It is also an admitted position that the appellant No.1 had suffered some cut injuries on his person and such injuries does not appear to have been properly explained by the prosecution. The other eye-witnesses have also said that accused No.1 was found injured at the time of assault. It is therefore, not unlikely that initially the appellants did not intend to inflict any knife injury on the deceased although they had knives in their hands, but after appellant No.1 was injured the appellants had also inflicted injuries on the deceased. The doctor has categorically stated that although the injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death, individually any of the injuries was not likely to cause death. The doctor has categorically stated that although the injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death, individually any of the injuries was not likely to cause death. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be definitely held that the appellants had been harbouring a common intention to murder the deceased and with such common intention they had inflicted knife injuries on the person of the deceased. In the absence of common intention to murder being established beyond all reasonable doubts, simply on account of death of Rambhan as a result of cumulative effect of all the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased, a case for conviction for murder under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. cannot be sustained. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that a case under Sec.326 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and Sec.324, I.P.C. has been establish by the prosecution against the appellants. We, therefore, allow the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court against the appellants under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. We, however, affirm the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellants. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1382 of 1977 is dismissed.” In Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995)3 Crimes 615, the facts are as follows: The deceased was shot at with firearms the medical evidence show that the injuries were caused by two types of firearms and were collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of the nature to cause death; however, there is no evidence to show that each of the two injuries caused by the gun were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The other accused were acquitted. On these facts, the Honourable judges of the Supreme Court of India held that the conviction under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. is not made out and it should be altered into one under Sec.326, I.P.C. alone besides the conviction under the Arms Act. 13. We carefully went through the two judgments referred to above. The other accused were acquitted. On these facts, the Honourable judges of the Supreme Court of India held that the conviction under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. is not made out and it should be altered into one under Sec.326, I.P.C. alone besides the conviction under the Arms Act. 13. We carefully went through the two judgments referred to above. In the first case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Honourable, Supreme Court of India had not held, as a universal rule, that simply because the injuries are collectively sufficient to cause death and individually any of the injuries was not likely to cause death, there can never be conviction under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. We have extracted the relevant portion of that judgment wherein all the materials available on record had entered the mind of the Honourable judges of the Supreme Court. We find that in addition to the medical evidence as referred to above, about each of the injury not likely to cause death, there were other materials also in favour of the accused to hold that the accused could not have shared the common intention. Likewise, in the second judgment also, though it is found that there is no evidence to show that each of the two injuries caused by the gun were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, yet, from the totality of circumstances available in that case only, it was held that the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 with the aid of Sec.34, I.P.C. 14. As against these two judgments brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant, we also have two other judgments of the Supreme Court of India brought to our notice by the learned Government counsel and they are to the following effect. As against these two judgments brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant, we also have two other judgments of the Supreme Court of India brought to our notice by the learned Government counsel and they are to the following effect. In State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, 1976 S.C.C. (Crl.) 659, the Apex Court held as follows: "The formidable weapons used by the accused in the beating, the savage manner of its execution, the helpless state of the unarmed victim, the intensity of the violence caused, the callous conduct of the accused in persisting in the assault even against the protest of feeling bystanders all, viewed against the background of previous animosity between the parties, irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the injuries caused by the accused to the deceased were intentionally inflicted and were not accidental. Thus the presence of the first element of clause thirdly of Sec.300 had been cogently and convincingly established." In that case, the medical evidence shows that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. P.W.12, the Doctor who did postmortem opined that the injuries noticed on her is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the context of the above, the Apex Court held as follows: "According to the medical evidence the injuries of the deceased were cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the cause of the death was shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries. Hence, the second element is established". In Nonappa Poojari v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1581, it has been held as follows: "Mr.S.N.Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant submits since all the incised injuries were found on the hands and legs the offence would not be one punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C. We see no force in the submission. The injuries on the hands and legs are quite serious and the doctor opined that cumulatively they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, a clear case of murder is made out. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly." 15. In the context of the judgments referred to above, we have looked at the postmortem certificate in this case which is Ex.P-4. Twelve injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased. Therefore, a clear case of murder is made out. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly." 15. In the context of the judgments referred to above, we have looked at the postmortem certificate in this case which is Ex.P-4. Twelve injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased. Injury No.2 shows that the right hand index and middle fingers were chopped off and the terminal part of index and middle fingers were severed from the hand. Injury No.3 is an incised wound on the base of right great toe cutting skin, tendons and bone; Injury No.4 is a chopped wound left elbow joints (9 x 9 x 2 cms) cutting skin muscle, blood vessels and bones exposing the elbow joints. Injury No.10 is an incised wound left leg 6 cms. above the ankle joint. 6 x 2 cms. cutting skin tendons and bone. Injury No.11 is an incised wound dorsum of left foot above ankle joint 5 x 4 cms. cutting skin, fascio blood vessels and bone. Injury No.12 is again an incised wound on the outer aspect of dorsum of left foot 4 x 1 cm. cutting skin, muscle and bone. The nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased speak volumes about the seriousness of the same and it cannot be said that these injuries would not cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 16. Going by the nature of the injuries noticed and the circumstances in which the deceased came to be inflicted with these injuries, we are of the respectful opinion that the two judgments brought to our notice by the learned Government counsel would aptly apply to the case on hand. Under these circumstances, we are not in a position to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction of A-2 for the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. on the basis of the medical evidence cannot be sustained. On the other hand, we are of the firm view that his conviction can be only under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and not under any other Section. Accordingly, we find no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed.