Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. One Bhgirath Singh owned agricultural land in village Thamber in the area of Police Station, District Ambala. He transferred his agricultural land measuring 13-1/2 Bighas, some 13 years ago in the name of Jaipal Singh deceased son of his brother Bishamber Singh. Bhagirath Singh was issueless. Therefore, out of love and affection, the property was transferred through a decree of Court. The other relations of Bhagirath Singh, namely, Pawan Kumar appellant-accused son of Kanwar Pal Singh brother of the deceased and Jang Bahadur son of another brother of Bhagirath Singh obviously did not like the transfer of the land exclusively to Jaipal Singh. Incidentally there was a tube-well in the said land which was in the name of Jaipal Singh deceased. Pawan Kumar and Jang Bahadur claimed that it was a joint land and a joint tube well. In view of the aforesaid background on 30.9.1995, Pawan Kumar appellant and others removed the motor of the said tube well and said that they will not allow the deceased party to irrigate their land. They raised a dispute with Jai Pal Singh. Rakam Singh PW5 son of Jaipal deceased had gone to change the Naka and when returned accused Pawan Kumar was found having injuries on his left hand and on the neck. At about 7.30 p.m. when Jaipal Singh, Faquir Chand and Rakam Singh reached near the railway road Barara, where a report was to be lodged with the police, Pawan Kumar and Jang Bahadur appellants armed with Khuntas (heavy wooden peg) challenged the complainant deceaseds son and proclaimed that they were going to teach them a lesson for getting a decree of the Court in their favour. Both the appellants inflicted injuries to Jaipal Singh deceased with the Khuntas. Pawan Kumar gave a Khunta blow on the nose of the deceased whereas Jang Bahadur gave a Khunta blow near the right ear, as a result of which Jaipal Singh fell down. While lying on the ground both the appellants inflicted Khunta blows on the face, buttock and other portions of the body of Jaipal Singh, who started bleeding from the nostrils. The nearby shopkeepers were attracted to the scene of occurrence. Thereafter the accused ran away from the spot along with their weapons. Rakam Singh and Faquir Chand removed the deceased to the hospital, who died there the same day. The nearby shopkeepers were attracted to the scene of occurrence. Thereafter the accused ran away from the spot along with their weapons. Rakam Singh and Faquir Chand removed the deceased to the hospital, who died there the same day. Thereafter Rakam Singh PW5 went to the Police Post Barara and made his statement Ex.PE before ASI Sushil Kumar PW9, at 12.30 a.m. on 1.10.1995 and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex.PD was recorded at 1.30 a.m. on 1.10.1995 at Police Station, Mullana. The special report reached the learned Ilaqa Magistrate at 7.00 p.m. on 1.10.1995. 2. ASI Sushil Kumar PW9 along with other police officials went to the place of occurrence and summoned Parvesh Nath PW4, a photographer, who took three photographs Ex.P1 to P3 of the dead body, the negatives of which are Ex.P4 to P6. A while Chadar stained with blood lying near the dead body was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PF. He prepared inquest report Ex.PK and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The Investigating Officer inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PC/1. After post-mortem the clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PL. It also came to the notice of the Investigating Officer that Pawan Kumar accused was admitted in Government Hospital, Mullana with injuries. Two constables were put on duty to guard him. Both Pawan Kumar and Jang Bahadur accused were arrested on 4.10.1995. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PN Pawan Kumar accused got recovered one wooden peg (Khunta) Ex.P8 which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PP. Similarly, Jang Bahadur accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PO got recovered a wooden peg (khunta) Ex.P9 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PQ. After completion of the investigation, the accused were put to trial 3. Dr. N.P. Jindal PW8 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jaipal Singh deceased on 1.10.1995 at 11.30 a.m. and found the following injuries :- (1) Inverted `V shaped lacerated wound each limb of which was 2 cm in size over the bridge of nose in the middle, which was depressed at the site of the injury. On opening the wound there was fracture to nasal bone. On opening the wound there was fracture to nasal bone. (2) Contusion injury measuring 11.5 cm x 3.25 cm over the right side of the face, extending across the ear labule, 2 cm anterior to the luble of the ear, backward and downwards towards back of the neck, where it was 1.75 cm in width. (3) Contusion injury measuring 10 cm x 1.75 cm obliquely placed over the left side of scapula. It was reddish in colour. (4) Contusion injury measuring 13 cm x 2 cm below injury No. 3 extending downwards and medially to the midline. It was reddish in colour. (5) Two horizontally placed contusions measuring 10 cm x 2 cm, second 9 cm x 2 cm separated by 3 cm over the left side of the back, over the lower thoracic margine. It was reddish in colour. On opening injury No. 5 there was fracture of 9th, 10th and 11th ribs which were broken and piece of rib was piercing into the spleen. 1.6 litres of blood was present in the peritoneal cavity. (6) Obliquely placed contusion, injuries measuring 15 cm x 2 cm over the back of right lumber region extending downward and medially to the medline. It was reddish in colour. (7) Contusion injury over the back of the left thigh, obliquely placed 14 cm x 2 cm in size. It was reddish in colour. (8) contusion injury, 4 cm x 1.7 cm over the front of inferior border of right knee. It was reddish in colour. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as s result of multiple injuries, especially injury No. 5, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex.PJ is the copy of the post-mortem report. The articles recovered from the spot sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which as per report Ex.PR were stained with human blood. 4. At the trial, the appellants claimed that the injuries inflicted on the person of Pawan Kumar appellants have not been explained. Pawan Kumar appellant appeared as DW3 and stated on oath that there was no partition of the land. The decree obtained was collusive and fraudulent. Jang Bahadur has filed a civil suit as special attorney. 4. At the trial, the appellants claimed that the injuries inflicted on the person of Pawan Kumar appellants have not been explained. Pawan Kumar appellant appeared as DW3 and stated on oath that there was no partition of the land. The decree obtained was collusive and fraudulent. Jang Bahadur has filed a civil suit as special attorney. It was claimed by Pawan Kumar that Jaipal Singh deceased and his son Rakam Singh PW5 had made murderous assault on him and that they were the aggressors. 5. The learned trial Judge over-ruled the defence of the appellants and convicted both Pawan Kumar and Jang Bahadur appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 6. Aggrieved by the order of their conviction and sentence Pawan Kumar appellants has filed Crl. A. No. 404-DB of 1998 and Jang Bahadur has filed Cr. A. No. 415-DB of 1998 which are being disposed of by his judgment. 7. So far as the prosecution version of the case during the trial is concerned, it may be stated that Rakam Singh PW5 is the son of Jaipal Singh deceased. While depositing in the Court he claimed on solemn affirmation that when he had gone to change the course of water in the fields, he saw that Pawan Kumar and others had removed the motor of the tube well. There was a quarrel between Pawan Kumar and some other persons. Before they could reach the Police Station, his father was way laid by the appellants and was inflicted Khunta blows as mentioned in his statement Ex.PE. He was cross- examined at length. The defence could not elicit anything in his cross- examination which could be of any help to it. Faquir Chand PW6, however, did not support the prosecution version. Rakam Singh denied the suggestion that they had caused injuries to Pawan Kumar appellant. It needs to be mentioned here that Pawan Kumar, while appearing as DW3, did not come to the court with clean hands. Faquir Chand PW6, however, did not support the prosecution version. Rakam Singh denied the suggestion that they had caused injuries to Pawan Kumar appellant. It needs to be mentioned here that Pawan Kumar, while appearing as DW3, did not come to the court with clean hands. He admitted in his statement on oath while appearing as his own witness that the electric connection of the tube well in question was in the name of Jaipal Singh deceased alone. He admitted that he had gone to irrigate the land on 30.9.1995. He also admitted that Jaipal Singh refused to give more water from that tube well telling him that he had no concern. He also exchanged hot words with him. He further claimed that he snatched a Lathi from Rakam Singh and wielded the same in self-defence. He claimed that Jaipal Singh deceased was armed with a Gandasi, Rakam Singh was armed with a Lathi and he himself asserted that in fact he did not know as to if any blow was received at his hands by the deceased and according to him, he was given injuries on various parts of his body by the deceased and Rakam Singh. He, however, did not attribute any specific injury given on his person from the complainant side. He also described wrongly that Bhagirath Singh had been dead. So when the deceased had already declined and refused the appellant to take a turn of water, there was no motivation for him to cause injuries also. It was for the appellants to resort to violence and to secure the water by force and when Jaipal Singh had been injured at the earliest he had no occasion to attack Pawan Kumar. So the version mentioned by the appellants is totally false and frivolous. It is true that when in a given occurrence the injuries are alleged to have been caused to the accused by the complainant party also they are bound to explain the injuries. But it is not in every case that the injuries on the persons of the accused have to be explained. Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 S.C. 2593, Onkarnath Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 S.c. 1550, Bankey Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 S.C. 2233 and Bhagwan Tana Patil v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1974 S.C. 21. 8. At the same time Dr. Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 S.C. 2593, Onkarnath Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 S.c. 1550, Bankey Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 S.C. 2233 and Bhagwan Tana Patil v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1974 S.C. 21. 8. At the same time Dr. Usha Kumari DW2, who examined Pawan Kumar appellant, had mentioned about six injuries on his person out of which injury Nos. 1, 5 and 6 were described as simple while injury Nos. 2 to 4 were kept under observation and were subjected to X-ray. However, no x-ray was performed nor an application was moved by the appellant to get the injuries X-rayed. In cross-examination Dr. Usha Kumari DW2 has stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 could be the result of a single blow while the dimension of injury Nos. 4 and 5 were same and could also be the result of a single blow and these injuries could be caused with a weapon having 0.2. cm width and thickness while in fact no injury was mentioned at Sr. No. 6 and the duration of the injuries on his person could not be related with the time of the occurrence of the present case. So one cannot say that how injuries on the person of Pawan Kumar appellant were sustained or were self-inflicted or concocted. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were innocent or that they caused injuries to the deceased in self-defence is totally overruled. 9. So far as the question of offence to be made out is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court authority in Karam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 SCC (Crl.) 64, which lays down that: "Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 304 Pt. II and 302 - Culpable homicide or murder - Death caused by infliction of lathi blows on chest of the deceased resulting in rupture of liver and spleen - Accused cannot be held to have intended to cause death. He must be attributed to have the knowledge that such lathi blows were likely to cause death of the victim - Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Pt. II and sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 5 years R.I. - Criminal Trial - Sentence." 10. He must be attributed to have the knowledge that such lathi blows were likely to cause death of the victim - Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Pt. II and sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 5 years R.I. - Criminal Trial - Sentence." 10. In the case in hand, if we have a look at injury No. 5 on the person of the deceased it can be stated that there were fractures of 9th, 10th and 11th ribs which were broken and the piece of rib pierced into the spleen which resulted into the death of the deceased. As per the detailed observations in the above cited case, we outrightly agree with the learned counsel that the offence in the case in hand falls under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, convert the conviction of the appellants from under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to that under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentence each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years whereas the sentence of fine or in default thereof is maintained. In view of the above discussion, Crl. A. No. 404-DB of 1998 and Crl. A. No. 415-DB of 1998 are partly allowed as indicated above.