( 1 ) THE appellants and one Jai Pal alias Maru were charged with offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for having caused the death of one Arjun on 1-11-1992. During the pendency of the trial, the abovesaid Jai Pal died and the proceedings having abated against him the trial was continued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal against the appellants and he having found the said persons guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC convicted the appellants to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs 2000 each under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and in default to further undergo RI for one year. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that out of the total amount of fine i. e. Rs 6000 on realization, a sum of Rs 4000 shall be paid to the widow of the deceased. The appeals of the appellants to the High Court of Punjab and haryana having failed, these appellants are before us by way of this appeal. ( 2 ) THOUGH Shri K. B. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants questions the correctness of the courts below as to their finding of guilt of the appellants in causing the death of Arjun, having considered the entire material on record as also the reasoning of the courts below and having heard the counsel for the parties, in this appeal, we are satisfied that we find no reason to differ from the findings of the courts below. Therefore, we reject the argument of Shri Sinha in regard to that question. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, Shri Sinha contended that even assuming that the prosecution has made out a case against the appellants for having caused the death of Arjun, he submitted the same could not be an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. For this purpose, he strongly relied on the evidence of the doctor as also the evidence of the witnesses in regard to the nature of attack. According to the learned counsel, the offence would come under Section 326 IPC and not as held by the courts below. For this purpose, he strongly relied on the evidence of the doctor as also the evidence of the witnesses in regard to the nature of attack. According to the learned counsel, the offence would come under Section 326 IPC and not as held by the courts below. Shri j. P. Dhanda, learned counsel appearing for the State countered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that from the very nature of injuries seen on the body of the deceased, it is clear that the appellants intended the death of the deceased and they also had the knowledge that the said injuries would cause death. He placed strong reliance on the third clause of Section 300 IPC. Having considered the facts of the case in the above perspective, we find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. From the oral evidence of the prosecution witness, we notice that if the appellants had any intention to kill the deceased, nothing could have prevented them from doing so straight away. They had no opposition from any source, that they had all the time to commit the offence. In such like situation, if the appellants had the intention to kill they could have given the blow on a vital part of the body of the deceased, which has not happened. Even though the appellants used deadly weapons like gandasi and lathis, they aimed their blows only on the limbs of the deceased, of course, there were nine injuries on the body of the deceased, even then all of them were on the limbs only. The doctor had opined that any individual injury on the appellant could not have caused, in the normal course, the death of the deceased. Though in the examination-in-chief, he said that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage arising out of the cumulative effect of the injuries on the deceased, in the cross-examination he stated thus:"none of the injuries was on any vital part of the body of the deceased. None of the injuries was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. A layman does not understand that by causing injuries on legs and arms as were found in the present case, a man can die. None of the injuries was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. A layman does not understand that by causing injuries on legs and arms as were found in the present case, a man can die. It is correct that bleeding in the present case continued for sufficiently long time and therefore, because of the loss of blood Arjun died, because of shock and that is why both the chambers of the heart were empty. " ( 4 ) THIS evidence is not challenged by the prosecution, which shows that the appellants could neither have had the knowledge that their attack would, in the normal course, cause the death of the deceased nor would they have had the intention to cause the death. In this regard, if we take into consideration the motive suggested by the prosecution for the crime, the said motive was not such that the appellants would have thought of committing the murder of the deceased. According to the prosecution, there was some dispute between the deceased and the appellants as to some assault about 3 or 4 years before the date of incident and in regard to this the appellants attacked the deceased. But it should be seen that there was no other incident between the said assault and the date of incident. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the appellants would not have had the intention to cause the death of the deceased with such a weak and stale motive. ( 5 ) IT is also necessary to note the fact that the doctor has, in his cross-examination, stated that the death of the deceased was due to excessive bleeding. It is seen from the records that at the place of the attack viz. Deegh, there was a government hospital but the deceased was not taken by the witnesses to the said hospital but was taken to Kaithal which is about 20 km away from the place of incident that too after stopping in their village en route. This belated medical attention obviously had aggravated the cause of death. Deegh, there was a government hospital but the deceased was not taken by the witnesses to the said hospital but was taken to Kaithal which is about 20 km away from the place of incident that too after stopping in their village en route. This belated medical attention obviously had aggravated the cause of death. ( 6 ) HAVING taken all the above circumstances into consideration, we are of the opinion that the offence committed by the appellants does not fall under section 302 IPC but could be appropriately brought under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC, Therefore, we allow the appeal of the appellants to this extent. ( 7 ) WE confirm fee sentence imposed on the appellants by the Additional sessions Judge, Kaithal. We convict the appellants for an offence under section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and award the sentence to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs 7000 each and in default to undergo a further RI for a further period of 2 years. If the above fine totalling to Rs 21,000 is recovered from the appellants, a sum of Rs 15,000 will be paid to the widow of the deceased. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed.