Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal against acquittal filed by the State of Punjab arises out of the following facts : P.W-2 Ram Charan and Vidya Rani (since deceased) had been married about 18 years prior to the incident but no child has been born to the couple. At about 6/7 P.M. on August 4, 1989, Ram Charan took his wife to the Dera of the accused, situated in village Sahera for getting her exorcised of the civil spirits, which had apparently seized her. They found Kewal Nath and Pritam Nath who claimed to be Sadhus in the Dera and Pritam Singh and Raghbir Singh their Chelas (all four accused) present there. He told them that his wife had been seized by evil spirits, which needed to be exorcised and requested them for their help, whereupon the four accused, who were carrying an iron rod, a Trishool and Chimtas tied Vidya Rani to a tree and started giving blows on various parts of her body. After some time, Ram Charan got alarmed and tried to intervene by telling them that this treatment would kill her. The accused, however, assured him that Vidya Rani would not die. Vidya Rani, however, became unconscious during the night and Ram Charan received the information, the next day, that she had, in the meanwhile, died. He raised a Raula, which attracted Bhagwan Singh, Balbir Singh, Bhola Ram and Surinder Singh to the spot. Ram Charan then left for Police Station, Mulepur and made his statement before P.W.-8 SI Jaspal Singh and on its basis, the formal F.I.R. was registered in the Police Station at 3.05 P.M. on August 5, 1989; with the special report being delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 8.00 P.M., the same evening. ASI Sutjit Singh and other police officials accompanied by Ram Charan then reached the Dera and found the dead body of Vidya Rani lying face down in a room of the Dera. The Police Officer made the necessary inquiries and sent the dead body for its post-mortem examination. The accused were arrested on August 11, 1989 and on the basis of their disclosure statements, the weapons that they had been carrying were duly recovered. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial. 2. The accused were arrested on August 11, 1989 and on the basis of their disclosure statements, the weapons that they had been carrying were duly recovered. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial. 2. To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined P.W-1 Dr. Vijay Kumar, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body and had found 16 injuries thereon including a large number of burn injuries; P.W-2 Ram Charan, the complainant and an eye-witness to all that had happened; P.W-5 Harsurinder Singh Kanungo, who had prepared the site plan; and P.W-8 SI Jaspal Singh, the Investigating Officer. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the very existence of the dera and asserted that they had been residing in village Sahera and had been involved in a false case. 4. The trial Court went into the evidence and concluded that as Ram Charan was a solitary witness, conviction could be recorded only if it could be said that his evidence was absolutely without blemish. The Court then examined the evidence of this witness in that background and concluded that as the fact that the weapons had first been heated and then used on Vidya Rani had not found mention in the F.I.R. went to the root of the matter, which made his presence doubtful as a large number of burn injuries had been found on the dead body. It was also observed that the prosecution story that Vidya Rani had been tied to a tree too had not been borne out from the medical evidence as no ligature marks had been detected on her body. The Court also held that the conduct of Ram Charan was unnatural inasmuch that after having seen his wife being badly belaboured, he had not made any serious effort to save her but had rested content by merely expressing an opinion that she might die due to the beating. The Court accordingly acquitted the accused. 5. Hence the present appeal at the instance of the State of Punjab. Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, Sr. The Court accordingly acquitted the accused. 5. Hence the present appeal at the instance of the State of Punjab. Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has first and foremost argued that the trial Court had been swayed by unimportant considerations in making an order of acquittal as the basic issue was whether Ram Charan had in fact witnessed the occurrence. In this connection, he has pointed out that this witness had clearly stated that he had taken his wife to the Dera and the mere fact that there were minor improvements here and there vis-a-vis his statement before the police and his evidence in Court was of no consequence as he could not be expected to know that his wife would be killed in the process. It has also been urged that from the very nature of injuries found on the dead body, it was a clear case of an attempt at the exorcising of evil spirits and that too in the manner suggested by the prosecution. 6. As against this, Mr. R.S. Cheema, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the accused-respondents has placed primary reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166 to argue that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for if the judgment under appeal was based on a misreading of the evidence or was otherwise perverse and merely because the appellate Court could perhaps take a different view was not a ground for interference. He has also urged that the F.I.R. had been lodged after a delay of 18 hours and this delay was unexplainable in the light of the fact that Ram Charan had been an eye-witness to the incident and had in fact at one stage expressed his apprehension to the accused that the beating that was being given to his wife would kill her. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. We are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court are palpably erroneous and could not have been given on the evidence that has been led by the prosecution. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. We are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court are palpably erroneous and could not have been given on the evidence that has been led by the prosecution. It is to be noted that Ram Charan, a migrant labourer, from U.P. (although he had been admittedly living in Punjab for a long time) was working as a Mali (Gardener) and could be expected to have been steeped in fear and superstitions. It is also the admitted position that he was illiterate. We are of the opinion that the presence of this witness was absolutely natural as it could not be believed that Vidya Rani, who was unwell and supposedly seized by evil spirits, could have gone to the Dera on her own and as the couple had no child, the only person to take her to the Dera was her husband. It is true that in the F.I.R. Ram Charan did not mention that the weapons wielded by the accused had first been heated before Vidya Rani had been beaten but the basic fact remains that he had clearly stated that she had been given a severe beating with the weapons. The omission to state that the weapons had been heated, to our mind, is of little consequence in the light of the fact that Ram Charan could not possibly have anticipated that what he believed to be a simple treatments for his wifes problem would end in her tragic death. It is also true that the F.I.R. had been lodged after a delay of 18 hours but in the background of the case, this fact by itself pales into insignificance. Ram Charan had no grouse against the accused so as to involve them in a false case. 8. Mr. Cheema has laid great emphasis on injuries No. 15 and 16 to argue that the case in hand did not pertain to an attempt to exorcise an evil spirit but something else had in fact happened. We reproduce here the injuries as they would be relevant not only for considering Mr. Cheemas argument but for determining the nature of the offence and the quantum of the sentence as well : 1. Burning abrasion over the right side of face in the mandibular area. 2. We reproduce here the injuries as they would be relevant not only for considering Mr. Cheemas argument but for determining the nature of the offence and the quantum of the sentence as well : 1. Burning abrasion over the right side of face in the mandibular area. 2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm. over the frontal surface and medial surface of right upper arm, 7 cm below the right shoulder joint. 3. Many burning wounds measuring 3 cm. x 2 cm. over the both shoulder areas and around the neck area. Blister with skin peeled off was present ever the wound. 4. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. over the frontal and medial surface of the left upper arm through which the muscle tissue was coming out. 5. Three lacerated wounds over the back surface of left hand measuring 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. in size. 6. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. over the back surface of right forearm. 7. Many burning bruises measuring 7 cm. x 3 cm. in size over the lateral side of both side of the chest and frontal surface of the chest. Blistering of the skin with peeling off superficial skin was present. 8. Many burning bruises with skin blistering with peeling off skin measuring 7 cm. x 3 cm. in size of over frontal and lateral side of the abdomen was present. 9. Many burning bruises area with big blister of the whole of the left thigh was present. On dissection, there was collection of sero- haemorrhage fluid in the big blister. Underlying muscle was ecchomosed and oedematous. 10. Many burning bruises with blister and superficial skin peeled off was present over the whole of the both surface of right thigh. Blister contained sero-haemorrhage fluid and underlying muscle was ecchomosed and oedamatous. 11. Many burning bruises with blister measuring 3 cm. x 3 cm. in size over the frontal and back surface of right leg. Superficial skin of the leg and sole was peeled off. 12. Many bruises with blister over the both surface of left leg measuring 3 cm. x 2 cm. in size. Superficial skin was peeled off., 13. Many bruises with burning blister over the back of both surface of chest measuring 10 cm. x 3 cm. in size. Superficial skin was peeled off, haemorrhage fluid was oozing from the wounds. 14. 12. Many bruises with blister over the both surface of left leg measuring 3 cm. x 2 cm. in size. Superficial skin was peeled off., 13. Many bruises with burning blister over the back of both surface of chest measuring 10 cm. x 3 cm. in size. Superficial skin was peeled off, haemorrhage fluid was oozing from the wounds. 14. Many burning bruises with blisters and skin peeled off over the lumber area both side measuring 10 cm. x 3 cm. in size. Superficial skin was peeled off with haemorrhage fluid oozing out. 15. Libia majora was oedmatous libia minora oedmatous vagina was protruding outward. Skin over the labia majora was peeled off. 16. Mucous mambrane was protruding out through anus. Faecal matter was coming out. It is true that injury Nos. 15 and 16 did pertain to some injuries to the vigina but when questioned, the doctor clearly stated that injury No. 15 could have been caused by a weapon but injury No. 16 could not have been caused by any weapon. To our mind, this apparent confusion with regard to the nature of these injuries is also to no avail as the evidence of Ram Charan when considered along with the other injuries, leaves no doubt that the injuries had been caused by the accused in the manner and purpose suggested by the prosecution. 9. We have also heard the learned counsel for the parties with regard to the nature of offence and quantum of sentence. We are of the opinion that a case of murder is not spelt out as there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death but they could safely be attributed with the knowledge that death could be caused in such a situation. We accordingly convict them for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code but considering the nature and the extent of injuries caused to Vidya Rani, and to serve as a warning on unscrupulous individuals such as the accused herein, who mislead and exploit gullible individuals for monetary gain, some deterrent sentence is called for. 10. We, therefore, sentence all the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10. We, therefore, sentence all the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for an offence punishable under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code. The fine, if realised, shall be paid to the complainant-Ram Charan, the husband of the deceased. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.