R. B. DIXIT, J. ( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 21/4/1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 4/88 of lind Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri thereby convicting appellants Sukhwant Singh under Section 302 and Satnam Singh and Kashmira Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment each. Appellants have come in appeal seeking redress praying for setting aside the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed against them. ( 2 ) KASHMIRA Singh has died during pendency of appeal, with the result appeal stands abated against him. ( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to prosecution in brief are that a day before the incident, accused Sukhwant Singh was abusing deceasedsuccha Singh under the influence of liquor and had passed a remark as to why he was saying to beat him with shoes. The deceased told him that he would talk in the morning. ( 4 ) NEXT day on 7/10/1987 a Panchayat was held in the house of Arjun Singh. When Sukhwant Singh was questioned regarding the false allegation, he stated that this information was received by him from his brother-in- law Joga Singh. The Panchayat was then adjourned for calling Joga Singh. At about 3 p. m. on the same day, Joga Singh along with his father anived there. When Joga Singh was put a question by Balkar Singh whether he had made the allegation, then Joga Singh told that the fact was informed by his father. However, his father Reghuveer Singh who was present, denied the allegation. This led to abusing between the parties and meanwhile Kashmira Singh exhorted Sukhwant Singh to finish the deceased. Then the deceased was caught hold by Satnam Singh and Kashmira Singh and Sukhwant Singh picked up an axe which was lying near Tandoor and assaulted the deceased on his head. When he wanted to assault second time. Balkar Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Arjun Singh and Maluk Singh intervened and warded off accused persons. ( 5 ) THE deceased was taken to Shivpuri hospital, however, he died in the way. Balkar Singh lodged First Information Report (Ex. P/12) at Satanwada Police Station. Police prepared Panchanamaof the dead body and the postmortem was performed by Dr. Balkar Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Arjun Singh and Maluk Singh intervened and warded off accused persons. ( 5 ) THE deceased was taken to Shivpuri hospital, however, he died in the way. Balkar Singh lodged First Information Report (Ex. P/12) at Satanwada Police Station. Police prepared Panchanamaof the dead body and the postmortem was performed by Dr. G. D. Agrawal (P. W. 3) who found incised wound oblique 5 x 1 cm Skin deep going backward and forward centrally situated over right fronto pariental region, dura meta torn 3 x 0. 5 cm size vertically and brain matter coming out from the dura. The cause of death is injury to vital organ i. e. brain causing haematoma, dural tear and laegation of brain. ( 6 ) THE accused persons were apprehended and an axe was recovered at the instance of accused Sukhwant Singh. ( 7 ) THE defence of accused persons was that they were beaten by the deceased and when persons of his side ran for safety, the deceased and other persons followed them. Consequently deceased fell from the boundary wall and sustained a head injury by falling on the stones. Accused persons had also suffered injuries in the same incident. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for appellants has contended before us that there was no previous history of enmity between the parties and accused persons had gone unarmed to participate in the Panchayat. Since the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons, it has to be held that the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the genesis of the prosecution story. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand has, however, supported the findings of the learned trial Court. ( 9 ) WE have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record. ( 10 ) ARJUN Singh (P. W. 4) is the witness at whose residence parties assembled to hold a panchayat. According to him at one side were the accused persons and on the other side of panchayat were deceased and Balkar Singh and Maluk Singh, his brother Sukhdev Singh was also present. When Sukhwant Singh was asked as to why he was abusing the deceased, he told the panchayat that his brother-in-law Joga Singh informed him that doctor will beat him with shoes. When Sukhwant Singh was asked as to why he was abusing the deceased, he told the panchayat that his brother-in-law Joga Singh informed him that doctor will beat him with shoes. The deceased therefore asked him to present Joga Singh in the panchayat. When panchayat again assembled in the afternoon then Joga Singh along with his father was present. Joga Singh told them that this fact was told to him by his father. However, his father Raghuveer Singh denied the fact and said that his son is speaking a lie. The panchayat, therefore, found the allegations as false. This caused annoyance to the accused persons and they started abusing the deceased. Meanwhile, Accused Sukhwant Singh picked up an axe lying near the Tandoor and assaulted the deceased on his head, when he was caught hold by Kashmira Singh and Satnam Singh. The deceased after the assault released himself and ran away, when he fell from the boundary wall, accused persons also ran away, and while running away they also fell on the boundary wall. According to this witness the accused persons might have sustained injuries because of falling on boundary stones. ( 11 ) SUKHDEV Singh (P. W. 5), Balkar Singh (P. W. 6) and Maluk Singh (P. W. 7) have also endorsed the prosecution case as has been narrated by Arjun Singh. However, all of them have stated that they were of the view that the accused persons might have sustained injuries while falling on the stone. ( 12 ) IT will be worthwhile to examine the injuries sustained by the accused person at this stage. In medical examination report of Sukhwant Singh contusion of left shoulder, right leg, upper part of back, left side of lumber region were found. In medical examination of Satnam Singh contusion of lower eye lid, left side of parietal part of head, left side back of lumber region, left side of front of knee, upper part of nose were detected. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that such injuries are not possible only by jumping or falling on the stone, particularly the injuries on head of Satnam Singh and on back side of both Satnam Singh and Sukhwant Singh are not possible while coming into contact with stone. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that such injuries are not possible only by jumping or falling on the stone, particularly the injuries on head of Satnam Singh and on back side of both Satnam Singh and Sukhwant Singh are not possible while coming into contact with stone. ( 13 ) IT has been argued for defence that some wordy quarrel took place between the parties and then the scuffle might have led to cause injury by axe in heat of passion by the main accused Sukhwant Singh and in such a situation no intention to cause death on spot can be gathered. Reliance is placed on a decision of Apex Court in the case of Jaiprakash v. State Dethi Administration , wherein it has been observed that the knowledge as contrasted with intention signify a state of mental realisation with the bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which human mind remains supine or inactive. On the other hand, intention is a conscious state in which mental faculties are aroused into activity and summoned into action for the purpose of achieving a conceived end. It means shaping of ones conduct so as to bring about a certain event. Therefore, in the case of intention mental faculties are ptjeid in a tdir1in. Intentin need not necessarily involve premeditation. ( 14 ) THE Honble Apex Court relying upon the case of Jaiprakash (Supra) has held in case of Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar , that where it appears that the accused persons came armed with deadly weapons and there was an altercation and exchange of hot words whereafter appellant assaulted victim with a bhala causing injury on the chest rupturing important blood vessels and cutting the aorta and other artery resulting in her instantaneous death. Clause Third of section 300 IPC is fully attracted. ( 15 ) IN the case of Subramani and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Apex Court declined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the State that the injuries being simple, the prosecution was not obliged to give any explanation for the same. Clause Third of section 300 IPC is fully attracted. ( 15 ) IN the case of Subramani and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Apex Court declined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the State that the injuries being simple, the prosecution was not obliged to give any explanation for the same. It is made clear that having regard to the facts of the case where omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries of the accused may give rise to the inference that the prosecution is guilty of suppressing the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and had thus not presented the true version. It may well be that the prosecution witnesses were lying on a material point and, therefore, render themselves unreliable, or it may be that the defence version explaining the injuries on the person of that accused is probably the true version of the occurrence which certainly throw a serious doubt on the prosecution case. ( 16 ) IN the present case it is found that explanation of the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons does not fit in their medical examination reports. In this context, learned counsel of the appellants has submitted that according to the prosecution witnesses the deceased was assaulted by Sukhwant Singh when he was caught hold by two other accused Kashmira Singh and Satnam Singh. It has come in evidence that the deceased was caught hold from front and back side. In the circumstance causing of the injuries on head by main accused Sukhwant Singh is not possible and if the injury was not caused in a manner as stated by prosecution witnesses then non-explanation of the injuries of the accused assumes importance and it has to be held that prosecution witnesses being interested are suppressing the genesis of the occurrence. ( 17 ) IN the facts and circumstances, it is not established that the fatal injury to the deceased was caused with intention to cause death on the part of the main accused and in case if it is found that the injury was inflicted in heat of passion then offence was in category of offence punishable under Section 304, Part II IPC. In so far as Satnam Singh is concerned it is not proved beyond doubt that he shared the common intention with coacused Sukhwant Singh. In so far as Satnam Singh is concerned it is not proved beyond doubt that he shared the common intention with coacused Sukhwant Singh. Since he has also received injuries in the same incident, he in our opinion is entitled to benefit of doubt. ( 18 ) SUKHWANT Singh has already undergone imprisonment for more than 4 years and has also suffered mentally during the pendency of the litigation for about 15 years. In our opinion this seems to be sufficient punishment in facts and circumstances of the case. ( 19 ) THE appeal is partly allowed and the order of conviction and sentence of Sukhwant Singh under section 302 IPC and that of Satnam Singh under section 302 read with section 34 IPC is setaside. However, Sukhwant Singh is held guilty of the offence punishable under section 304 part II IPC and for that, sentence already undergone by him is awarded. Appeal allowed partly. .