JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 28.8.1995, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 80/90, State of Rajasthan v. Munshi Singh & Ors. , convicting and sentencing three accused-appellants-Munshi Singh, Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh, u/s. 302/34 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and u/s. 325/34 to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergone one month's rigorous imprisonment. These three accused-appellants have also been convicted u/s. 323/34 IPC, but no separate sentence has been awarded for the same. The remaining three accused persons Sohan Singh, Gulab Singh and Karan Singh have been acquitted for all the offences u/ss. 147, 302/149, 325/149, 323 & 323/149 IPC. In all six persons, were put to trial under various sections of IPC as under:- Munshi Singh : Under Secs. 148, 302/149, 325/149, 323 and in the alternative 323/149 IPC. Madan Singh : Under Section 147; 302/149, 325, 323, 323/149 IPC. Gulab Singh, Sohan Singh, Prabhu Singh, Karan Singh : Under Section 147, 302/149, 325/149, 323, 323/149 IPC. 2. Out of these six accused persons, three accused viz. Sohan Singh, Gulab Singh and Ka-ran Singh have been acquitted for all the offences while remaining three accused-appellants i.e. Munshi Singh, u/s. 148 IPC, Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh u/s. 147 IPC have been acquitted but u/s. 302/34, 325/34 & 323/34 IPC, they have been convicted and sentenced as stated above instead of Secs. 302/149, 325/149, 323 & 323/149 IPC. 3. The occurrence which was the subject-matter of the charges against all the six accused persons took place at about 4.00 p.m. on 23.6.1990, at village Pillod. Rameshwar Lal Sharma (since deceased) alongwith Rohitash PW-7, Radhey Shyam PW-3, Ramjilal PW-6, Satya Narain PW-5 lodged a written report Ex.P/1 at Police Station Surajgarh, district Jhunjhunu at about 7.30 p.m. on the same day with the averments that the informant was sitting in his house at about 4.00 p.m. At that time, three accused-Munshi S/o Kalu Singh, Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh both sons of Lachu Singh, having lathi and jelly in their hands carne there. An altercation took place between Ramji Lal P W-6 and these three accused persons and thereafter accused-Madan kicked Ramjilal. Rarnji Lal fell down and then all the three accused persons went away. An altercation took place between Ramji Lal P W-6 and these three accused persons and thereafter accused-Madan kicked Ramjilal. Rarnji Lal fell down and then all the three accused persons went away. Thereafter the informant Rameshwar Lal, alongwith Ramji Lal, Banwari Lal (PW-4), Satya Narain, Rohitash and Shyam Sunder went to the barrier. All the six accused persons came there. Accused-Madan Singh abused them and inflicted two or three lathi blows upon Rameshwar, accused-Prabhu Singh, Gulab Singh, Karan Singh, Munshi Singh and Sohan Singh also gave beating to them with lathies. Upon hearing hue and cry PW-1 Hanuman Singh alongwith two/four persons arrived there and intervened. 4. Formal FIR Ex.P/22 was registered u/ss. 147, 452, 307 & 323 IPC. Soon after this report, the injured Rameshwar Lal died at about 9.15 p.m. on the same day in the hospital, therefore, offence u/s. 302 IPC was added and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa, who committed this case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. Charges against all the six accused person were framed as stated above. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined as may as 15 witnesses viz. Hanuman Singh PW-1, Veer Singh PW-2, Radhey Shyam PW-3, Banwari Lal PW-4, Satya Marain PW-5, Ramji Lal PW-6, Rohitash PW-7, Dal Singh Shekhawat PW-8, Sheoprasad PW-9, Raj Kumar PW-10, Dr. D.D. Chanana PW-11, Dal Chand PW-12, Dr. Sita Ram Sharma PW-13, Mohammad Sadique PW-14 and Tulsi Rain PW-15. The accused were examined as provided by Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence of the prosecution. Four witnesses including DW-2 accused-Munshi Singh were examined as defence witnesses and having heard filial submissions, learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, delivered the judgment on 28.8.1995 as stated above. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and have scanned the entire evidence available on the record. First of all, we shall proceed to consider the medical evidence. The post-mortem on the dead body of deceased-Rameshwar Lal was conducted by PW-11 Dr. D.D. Chanana, on 24.6.1990, in Government Hospital Chirawa, and prepared postmortem report Ex.P/12. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of deceased. 1. First of all, we shall proceed to consider the medical evidence. The post-mortem on the dead body of deceased-Rameshwar Lal was conducted by PW-11 Dr. D.D. Chanana, on 24.6.1990, in Government Hospital Chirawa, and prepared postmortem report Ex.P/12. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of deceased. 1. Lacerated wound one and half' x 1/4" x scalp deep on the fronto parietal region on the skull - mid line oblique with blood clotts on the upper point. 2. Abrasion 3" x 2" on the frontal region of the skull rt. side with blood clotts. 3. Bruise 4" x 2" on the Rt. side of the neck oblique with diffused swelling on the neck. 4. Bruise four and half' x 1" on the ant. part of the neck, crossing the thyroid region obliquely bluish-black in colour with diffused swelling, on touch there are crepetations on the swollen neck. 5. Bruise 5" x 1" on the lower part of the neck on ant. side extending to the medial end of the rt. clavicle oblique below the injury No. 4th. 6. Bruise 3" x 1" on the root of the left side of the neck with diffused swelling oblique. 7. Bruise 6" x 1" with diffused swelling on the right side of the back middle ⅓ outer side extending to the lumber region. 8. Blood clotts/mouth and nostrils present. 7. The cause of death in the opinion of Dr. Chanana was due to shock caused by asphyxia caused by suffocation of the blood and oedema of the respiratory passage with the result of multiple injuries on the neck. He also found that these injuries were possible by lathi and jelly and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 8. Dr. Chanana also examined the injuries of PW-7 Rohitash, PW-3 Radhey Shyam, PW-5 Satya Narain and PW-6 Ramji Lal on 23.6.1990 and prepared injury Reports Ex.P/6 to Ex.P/9 respectively. These four persons received following injuries as per their injury reports :Rohitash : 1. Bruise 3" x 1" on the Rt. fore-arm middle one third outer side. 2. Bruise 2" x 1/2" on the left fore-arm middle one third outer side. 3. Bruise 4" x 1" on the left scapular region obliquenly. 4. Bruise 5" x 1" on the back middle ⅓ obliquely; Rt. side obliquely. 5. Bruise 8" x 1/2" on the Rt. Bruise 3" x 1" on the Rt. fore-arm middle one third outer side. 2. Bruise 2" x 1/2" on the left fore-arm middle one third outer side. 3. Bruise 4" x 1" on the left scapular region obliquenly. 4. Bruise 5" x 1" on the back middle ⅓ obliquely; Rt. side obliquely. 5. Bruise 8" x 1/2" on the Rt. side of back 3" below the Injury No. 4th with diffused tender swelling. 6. Pt. complains of membrosis on the lower legs both and ret. of urine. 7. Bruise 2" x 1" on the post part of the neck obliquely with diffused tander swelling. 8. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on the left side of the head. Radhey Shyam : 1. Bruise 2" x 1/2" on the left wrist joint radial side. 2. Defused tender swelling on the left side of the neck. Satya Narain : 1. Bruise 3" x 1" on the right arm middle one third outer side. Ramji Lal : 1. Abrasion 2" x 1/2" on the right leg lower ⅓ the ant. aspect with blood clotts. 2. Abrasion 1" x 1/4" on the left knee joint ant. aspect with blood clotts. 3. Lacerated wound one & half' x 1/4" x sup. skin deep on the left leg middle ⅓ ant. aspect with blood clotts. 9. Duration of all these injuries was about 6 hours. The injuries of PW-7 Rohitash were X-rayed and Injury Nos. 4 & 5 in Injury Report Ex.P/6 were found grievous in nature because of fracture and rest of the injuries of all the four injured persons were simple caused by blunt weapon. 10. A perusal of the medical evidence as well as other evidence goes to show that the timings of the injuries and the nature of weapons i.e. lathi and jelly, tailly with the time of this occurrence and weapons said to be used. 11. Now State Appeal against the acquittal is taken up. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the presence of all the six accused persons has been found proved even by the learned Sessions Judge, but the three accused-respondents-Sohan Singh, Gulab Singh and Karan Singh have been acquitted of all the charges on the ground that they did not take any part in causing assault to deceased-Shri. Rameshwar Lal. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the presence of all the six accused persons has been found proved even by the learned Sessions Judge, but the three accused-respondents-Sohan Singh, Gulab Singh and Karan Singh have been acquitted of all the charges on the ground that they did not take any part in causing assault to deceased-Shri. Rameshwar Lal. According to learned Public Prosecutor, this approach of learned Sessions Judge was not justified because it was not necessary for every member of unlawful assembly to inflict injuries to the deceased, if the injuries resulting into the death of deceased were caused by some of the members of unlawful assembly in furtherance of the commission of unlawful object. Reliance has been placed upon Rambilas Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1593 , Umesh Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, II (2000) CCR (SC) 191 , Kishori v. State of Delhi, 1999 Cr.L.J. 584 , Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 , State of Orissa v. Arjun Das Agrawal & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3229 & Pratapaneni Ravi Kumar alias Ravi & Anr. etc. v. State of A.P., AIR 1997 SC 2810 . 12. It was also argued that there was common evidence against all the six accused persons, therefore, it was not proper to acquit three persons. Reliance has been placed upon State of U.P. v. Sheo Rain, AIR 1974 SC 2267 . Learned senior counsel Shri S.R. Bajwas argued that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the acquittal arrived at by learned Sessions Judge after appreciation of entire evidence and mere presence of these three accused persons was not sufficient to make them liable as members of unlawful assembly. Reliance has been placed upon Roshan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 672 , Ramashish Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 555 . 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rambilas's case (supra) held that it is true that in order to convict persons vicariously u/s. 34 or Section 149, it is not necessary to prove that each and every one of them had indulged in overt acts. v. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 555 . 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rambilas's case (supra) held that it is true that in order to convict persons vicariously u/s. 34 or Section 149, it is not necessary to prove that each and every one of them had indulged in overt acts. Even so, there must be material to show that the overt act or acts of one or more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused or in prosecution of the common object of the members of the unlawful assembly. Taking similar view, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Singh's case (supra) that liability of other members for offence committed during continuance of occurrence rests upon fact whether they knew before hand that offence committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. In Kishori's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that accused-persons were members of mob alleged to have attacked and killed three deceased persons belonging to particular community. Details as to role attributed to several persons in mob or narration as to succession of events taking place may not be of much relevance. In Masalti v. The State of U.P. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a crowd of assailants (40 persons were charged u/s. 302/149 for killing 5 persons) who were members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants. State of Orissa v. Arjun Das (supra) was a case where 16 persons were booked for trial u/s. 302/149 and other offences under IPC, it was a case where accused convicted, actively participated in criminal act of giving fatal blows to deceased in furtherance of common object namely to cause death of deceased and therefore the judgment of acquittal in appeal by High Court was set aside. It was further held regarding one accused-Arjun Das Agrawal that this accused neither went inside the house of the deceased nor took any part in the commission of the murder. He only instigated by shouting the other accused persons. There is nothing in evidence to show that due to his instigation more blows were given by the accused persons. It was further held regarding one accused-Arjun Das Agrawal that this accused neither went inside the house of the deceased nor took any part in the commission of the murder. He only instigated by shouting the other accused persons. There is nothing in evidence to show that due to his instigation more blows were given by the accused persons. Therefore, no inference can be drawn that this accused-respondent had common intention or that he actually participated in the criminal act. Therefore, he was rightly acquitted. 14. In the Pratapzzeni's case (supra) 14 accused persons were tried for an offence of murder and it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the fact whether all the accused who were convicted, had beaten the deceased or not was not of any consequence. Thus the legal position according to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court is that overt act or the actual participation of every member of unlawful assembly having an unlawful common object is not necessary if the ultimate criminal act is done in furtherance of common object of all the members of such unlawful assembly. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and learned senior counsel Shri Bajwa in the light of above legal position. It is the case of the prosecution that first only three accused-appellants namely Munshi Singh, Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh came to the house of deceased Rameshwarlal at about 4.00 p.m. and after an altercation between the accused persons and PW-6 Ramjilal, one accused-Madan Singh kicked Ramjilal and all three accused persons went away. Second incident took place near barrier after sometime when, according to the prosecution evidence the complainant party was going to report the first incident and at that time rest of the three accused persons namely Gulab Singh, Sohan Singh and Karan Singh also accompanied first three accused persons. Thus, it is evident that three accused-respondents-Sohan Singh, Gulab Singh and Karan Singh did not accompany Munshi Singh and others when the first incident took place. Having considered the entire evidence, the learned Sessions Judge came to this conclusion that PW-3 Radhey Shyam, the injured witness stated that only three accused-appellants-Munshi Singh, Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh caused injuries to deceased-Rameshwar Lal. Similar was the statement of PW-4 Banwari Lal, who also reached at the place of occurrence. Having considered the entire evidence, the learned Sessions Judge came to this conclusion that PW-3 Radhey Shyam, the injured witness stated that only three accused-appellants-Munshi Singh, Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh caused injuries to deceased-Rameshwar Lal. Similar was the statement of PW-4 Banwari Lal, who also reached at the place of occurrence. Another injured witness PW-5 Satya Narain also narrated the actual participation of only three accused-appellants. He attributed the specific role taken by these three accused-appellants and stated that Munshi Singh, having jelly in his hands and Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh having lathies in their hands caused injuries to deceased-Rameshwar Lal. PW-6 Ramji Lal and PW-7 Rohitash, both injured witnesses also gave evidence regarding active participation in the beating only against these three accused-appellants namely Munshi Singh, Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh. They stated that accused-Munshi Singh inflicted injuries by jelly while remaining two accused-Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh inflicted lathi blows upon Rameshwar Lal. PW-7 Rohitash himself got eight injuries in all and out of these injuries, injury Nos. 4 & 5 were found grievous in nature. PW-7 stated in examination-in-chief that when he tried to intervene, Madan Singh, Munshi Singh and Prabhu Singh gave a beating to him. It was further stated that Prabhu Singh inflicted lathi blow upon his right hand, Madan Singh also inflicted lathi blows and Munshi Singh caused injuries by jelly. Regarding remaining three accused-respondents namely Karan Singh, Gulab Singh and Sohan Singh, he stated that they caused injuries with lathies upon his hip but according to medical evidence PW-7 Rohitash has got no injury on the hip part of his body, therefore, this part of the statement of Rohitash that Karan Singh, Gulab Singh and Sohan Singh inflicted lathi blows upon his hip does riot find any corroboration from medical evidence. PW-3 Radhey Shyam has got two simple injuries respectively on left wrist joint and on the left side of the neck as per the medical evidence. But according to his statement, only accused-Sohan Singh caused injury upon his shoulder. Thus the statement of Radhey Shyam regarding his own injury is not corroborated by medical evidence. Rather the statement of Radhey Shyam regarding his injuries is contradictory to medical evidence. But according to his statement, only accused-Sohan Singh caused injury upon his shoulder. Thus the statement of Radhey Shyam regarding his own injury is not corroborated by medical evidence. Rather the statement of Radhey Shyam regarding his injuries is contradictory to medical evidence. PW-5 Satya Narain got one injury i.e. bruise on the right arm as per the injury report and he stated that Sohan Singh inflicted one injury upon his right arm with a jelly while according to the other prosecution evidence only accused-Munshi Singh was having jelly and remaining accused persons were having lathier, therefore, the statement of Satya Narain regarding his injury is not corroborated by any other witness. PW-6 Ramji Lal was not given any beating in the second incident which took place near the barrier. Thus it is not disputed that the presence of all the six accused persons i.e. including Gulab Singh, Soh an Singh and Karan Singh has been found proved even by the learned Sessions Judge but there is absolutely no justification to interfere with this finding of the learned Sessions Judge that these three accused persons did not take any part in this crime and thus by mere presence, they were not the members of unlawful assembly having common object to kill Rameshwar Lal. The arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Shri Bajwa get support from the two judgments cited by him. According to the facts of the case of Foshan Lal (supra), ten persons went to the house of one Moti Ram but he was not in the house. They started abusing him. The deceased-Dattu, who was the neighbour, came out and protested the abuses. This appears to have enraged the accused persons, who after sometime went to the house of Balu Ram and challenged the deceased to come out. The deceased came out and he was assaulted by swords and spears. Pistol shots were also fired. No clear overt act was attributed to three appellants but it was said that they were also members of the unlawful assembly and were armed with lathies. It was held by the Courts below that since they were present in the unlawful assembly with lathies, they must be deemed to possess the common object of killing the deceased. No clear overt act was attributed to three appellants but it was said that they were also members of the unlawful assembly and were armed with lathies. It was held by the Courts below that since they were present in the unlawful assembly with lathies, they must be deemed to possess the common object of killing the deceased. In these facts and circumstances, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : "There is no reliable evidence at all to show that the appellant also shared this changed new common object. But even if they may be deemed to have shared the common object, by virtue of the vicarious liability, contemplated by Section 149, IPC, there are clear circumstances to show that the appellants did not participate in the offence. ........ In the result three accused-appellants were acquited. 16. In Ramashish's case (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that from the mere fact that two accused persons came and caught hold of the deceased, therefore, the other two accused came with gandasa and gave blows by means of gandasa, it can not be said that the accused who had held the deceased shared common intention with the other two accused who had inflicted the blows which resulted in death of the deceased. Consequently, the accused who had held the deceased cannot be held guilty of the charge u/s. 302/34 IPC. 17. In view of these two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, no interference is called for in the acquittal of these three accused-respondents. Further, in view of the prosecution evidence in this case, this contention of the learned Public Prosecutor also can not be accepted that the evidence against all the six accused persons was common and was not distinguishable, rather the evidence against the three accused-respondents who were acquitted was distinguishable from the case of other three accused who have been convicted. Thus the State Appeal against the acquittal deserves dismissal. 18. We would now proceed to the appeals filed by Munshi Singh and Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Bajwa and learned counsel Shri Agarwal have contended that no offence was proved beyond doubt against these three accused-appellants. Thus the State Appeal against the acquittal deserves dismissal. 18. We would now proceed to the appeals filed by Munshi Singh and Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Bajwa and learned counsel Shri Agarwal have contended that no offence was proved beyond doubt against these three accused-appellants. It was next argued that in view of the entire evidence, particularly the medical evidence, there was no intention of causing the murder and there is no evidence of any motive and therefore, the offence at the most comes u/s. 304 Part II IPC. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that a number of injuries were caused upon the head and neck of the deceased, which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and thus the there accused-appellants have been rightly convicted u/s. 302 with the help of Section 34 IPC. 19. Having considered the entire evidence, it has been proved beyond doubt that accused-appellant-Munshi Singh inflicted blows with jelly while the remaining two accused-appellants-Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh inflicted lathi blows upon deceased-Rameshwar. PW-3 Radhey Shyam clearly stated that Madan Singh inflicted lathi blows upon the neck, Munshi Singh inflicted blow with jelly and Prabhu Singh inflicted lathi blow upon the head of Rameshwar Lal. PW-4 Banwari Lal, PW-5 Satya Narain, PW-6 Ramji Lal and PW-7 Rohitash have also stated similar and their oral statements find corroboration from the medical evidence. Therefore, it has been proved beyond doubt that these three accused-appellants caused various injuries to deceased-Rameshwar Lal. It is also proved beyond doubt that these three accused-appellants also caused simple as well as grievous injuries with blunt weapons i.e. jelly and lathies to PW-7 Rohitash. 20. Now the crucial question that falls to be considered in this appeal is as to whether the offence disclosed by the facts and circumstances as established by the prosecution is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Regarding motive as stated earlier two incidents took place, first at 4.00 p.m. at the residence of the informant and second near the barrier when PW-6 Ramji Lal alongwith other eye-witnesses was going for his treatment as well as to report this matter. No motive has been mentioned in the FIR. But in view of the entire evidence, previous enmity existed between them. No motive has been mentioned in the FIR. But in view of the entire evidence, previous enmity existed between them. PW-3 Shri Radhey Shyam was given first suggestion in cross-examination to this effect that 15 days prior to this incident sons and brothers of PW-1 Hanuman Singh gave a beating to accused-Munshi Singh but this witness pleaded ignorance regarding any such incident. Second suggestion was admitted by this witness to this effect that the deceased-Rameshwar Lal had some quarrel with accused-Munshi Singh prior to this incident. Similar suggestions were given to PW-4 Banwari Lal in cross-examination. He also pleaded ignorance about any dispute between sons and brothers of PW-1 Hanuman Singh and accused side. But he stated that deceased-Rameshwar Lal abused accused-appellant-Madan Singh by calling him 'gola' in one function prior to this incident. PW-5 Satya Narain stated in his examination-in-chief that a quarrel took place between accused-Madan Singh and deceased-Rameshwar prior to this incident and deceased-Rameshwar Lal abused accused-Madan Singh by calling him 'gola' and it was the cause of dispute between them. In cross-examination, this witness made it clear that a quarrel between Rameshwar Lal and Madan Singh took place about one month prior to this incident on the occasion of the ceremony which was on account of death of his aunt. PW-7 Rohitash has also supported the statements of PW-4 Banwari Lal and PW-5 Satya Narain regarding this enmity. The fact of enmity further finds corroboration even from the statement of accused-appellant-Munshi Singh who was examined as DW-2. DW-2 Munshi Singh stated that prior to this incident, PW-1 Hanuman and his brother gave a beating to him. The Injury Report of Munshi Singh has also been exhibited as Ex.D/6 in the statement of DW-1 Dr. Radhey Shyam Sharma and this Injury Report is dated 9.6.1990. Thus this evidence shows that there was some dispute between the deceased-Rameshwar and accused side. It is also made clear that two accused-Madan Singh and Prabhu Singh are real brothers. Though this dispute may or may not be sufficient motive to commit murder but in case of direct evidence, absence of motive can not be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. In Nathuni Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 1808 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. In Nathuni Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 1808 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One can not normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impells a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. 21. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Bajwa has placed reliance upon State of Andhra Pradesh v. Ravavarapu Punnayya & Anr., AIR 1977 SC 45 . Para 16 of this statement is reproduced here : "In Cl. (3) of Section 300, instead of the words' likely to cause death' occurring in the corresponding Cl. (b) of Section 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" have been used. Obviously the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but real, and, if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference between Cl. (b) of Section 299 and Cl. (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word "likely" in Cl. (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of 'probable' as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words 'bodily injury ..... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature." 22. According to Para 37 of this judgment, reliance was placed upon the judgment delivered in Anda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148 . In that case, several accused beat the victim with sticks after dragging him into a house and caused multiple injuries including 16 lacerated wounds on the arms and legs. According to Para 37 of this judgment, reliance was placed upon the judgment delivered in Anda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148 . In that case, several accused beat the victim with sticks after dragging him into a house and caused multiple injuries including 16 lacerated wounds on the arms and legs. The Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy opened that the cause of death was shock and Syncope due to multiple injuries that all the injuries collectively could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, but individually none of them was so sufficient. In view of these facts, it was hold that the injuries were not on a vital part of the body and no weapon was used which can be described as specially dangerous. Only lathis were used. It can not, therefore, be said safely that there was an intention to cause the death of Bherun within the first clause of Section 300. At the same time, it is obvious that his hands and legs were smashed and wounds were caused. The number of injuries shows that every one joined in beating him. It is also clear that the assailants aimed at breaking his arms and legs. Looking at the injuries caused, the intention was clear that the injuries intended to be caused were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, even if it cannot be said that his death was intended. This is sufficient to bring the case within 3rdly of Section 300. The another judgment relied upon is State of U.P. v. Indrajeet alias Sukhatha, (2000) 7 SCC 249 . In this case occurrence took place at 4.00 p.m. inside the hut of the deceased, who died at about 5.15 a.m. in the hospital. Blows to deceased were given by "rukhani" (an implement used by carpenter and accused was also carpenter). Two incised wounds were caused and Hon'ble High Court held that offence made out is not u/s. 302 but u/s. 304 Part II IPC and Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court. 23. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance upon Ramashrya & Anti. Two incised wounds were caused and Hon'ble High Court held that offence made out is not u/s. 302 but u/s. 304 Part II IPC and Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court. 23. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance upon Ramashrya & Anti. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1 (2001) CCR 263 (SC) wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in order to decide the question, the nature of the injuries and the circumstances under which the incident took place are relevant factors. It was further held that though the quarrel between the accused and the deceased ensued after a wordy altercation, a series of injuries were caused by the accused on the skull and all over the body of the deceased and thus having regard to the nature of the injuries and the circumstances under which the injuries, came to be inflicted, it is clearly established that the appellants had the intention to cause the death of the deceased and the injuries caused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and thus the appellants have been rightly convicted u/s. 302, IPC. Keeping in view this judgment and Para 37 of AIR 1977 SC 45 , this case does not fall u/s. 304 Part I or Part II of IPC and it is a clear case of murder. As stated earlier, first incident took place at about 4.00 p.m. and second incident took place after some time and deceased-Rameshwar Lal was given as many as eight injuries by lathis and jelly. Out of these injuries, two injuries were upon head and four injuries were upon the neck, which are vital parts of the human body. As per post-mortem report Ex.P/12, following internal injuries were noted by PW-11 Dr. D.D. Chanana : Scalp, skull and vertebrae 1. Lacerated wound one and half' x 1/4" x scalp deep on the fronto-parietal region of the skull with diffused swelling and clotts of blood. Underneath the scalp, there is collection of blood-skull bones healthy. There is fracture of the 3rd cervical vertebrae with contusion of the spinal cord right side. Membranes contused, Larynx and Tracheae Larynx ruptured, contused edematous and blood stained fracture of thyroid and corcoid bones of trachea and full of blood clotts. Tracheae ruptured, Heart having blood in both ventricles dark coloured, Vessels of the neck - rt. There is fracture of the 3rd cervical vertebrae with contusion of the spinal cord right side. Membranes contused, Larynx and Tracheae Larynx ruptured, contused edematous and blood stained fracture of thyroid and corcoid bones of trachea and full of blood clotts. Tracheae ruptured, Heart having blood in both ventricles dark coloured, Vessels of the neck - rt. side cortoid and injured. Left cortoid artery & veins ruptured. There is diffusion of the blood on the muscles of the neck. Muscles of the neck sternomated (Rt) contused earymosed. Underneath the walls of the neck, thee is emphysema, eclymosis and collection of the blood present, Mouth Pharynx and Oesophaogus having blood clotts, Liver contused at ant. lobe and congested, muscles of neck contused and fracture of thyroid and cricoid bones cartilages. 24. In view of these injuries, which were sufficient to cause death, the contention of learned counsel Shri Bajwa cannot be accepted at all that, there was no intention to cause the death of deceased-Rameshwar. This contention also can not be accepted that these injuries were not the direct cause of the death, because in the opinion of the doctor these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the deceased-Rameshwar Lal died on account of these injuries. It is also important to mention here that the blows were repeated on the head and the neck. As stated earlier the deceased got two injuries upon the head and four injuries upon the neck and thus looking to the gravity of internal and external injuries, it is well proved that the intention of the accused was to commit murder and thus these three accused-appellants have been rightly convicted u/s. 302 r/w Section 34 IPC for causing death of Rameshwar and u/s. 325/34 for causing grievous injury to Rohitash. Thus these three appeals have no merit and are hereby dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******