Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated May 17, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which the application of the petitioner for conversion of the charge under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, framed against respondent Nos. 2 to 5, to that under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, was declined. 2. The occurrence in this case is alleged to have taken placed on June 11, 2001 and Balbir Singh (husband of the petitioner) died on June 23, 2001. All the injuries, which were 8 in number, were allegedly caused with Lathis on non-vital parts of the body. Dr. N.K. Singh (P.W.4), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Dasuya, who medically examined Balbir Singh deceased on June 11, 2002, found following injuries on his body :- 1. Reddish bruise on the back of the chest 10 cm x 3 cm on right side of chest middle part, obliquely present. Advised X-ray. 2. Abrasions 2 in number 1 cm x 1 cm and 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm right elbow posterior aspect surrounded by diffuse swelling over an area of 3 cm x 2 cm with oozing of blood. 3. Abrasion on the right foot 3 cm x 2 cm, 5 cm distal to ankle joint on anterior aspect of foot surrounded by diffuse swelling. Advised X- ray. 4. Abrasion 5 cm x 2.5 cm on lateral aspect of lower end of right leg. 3 cm above and front of lateral mellules surrounded by diffuse swelling. Advised X-ray. 5. Abrasions on lateral aspect of foot 2 in number of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm and 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm 2.5 cm apart. Advised X-ray. 6. Reddish contusion on right leg 6 cm x 2 cm horizontally placed on posterior aspect in middle 1/3rd part surrounded by diffuse swelling. Advised X-ray. 7. Diffuse swelling present on lower part of left leg. Advised X- ray. 8. Diffuse swelling present on middle 1/3rd part of right fore-arm. Advised X-ray. Injury No. 2 was simple in nature. Injury Nos. 1 and 3 to 8 were kept under observation. Kind of weapon used was blunt for all the injuries. In cross- examination, it was stated by the said doctor that injury Nos. 2 to 5 were abrasions and could result by rubbing against hard surface. 3. Dr. Advised X-ray. Injury No. 2 was simple in nature. Injury Nos. 1 and 3 to 8 were kept under observation. Kind of weapon used was blunt for all the injuries. In cross- examination, it was stated by the said doctor that injury Nos. 2 to 5 were abrasions and could result by rubbing against hard surface. 3. Dr. Ashok Rajwant, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Balbir Singh, in his cross-examination stated that he did not gave any opinion that injury No. 4 was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This witness stated that injury Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were abrasions. These injuries could be the result of rubbing against hard surface and injury No. 3 was simple in nature and was on the non-vital part of the body. He further stated that in this case development of gangrene during the course of treatment was not brought to his notice. This doctor further opined that injury No. 4 on the person of Balbir Singh deceased by itself cannot cause death in all probability. 4. A look at the injuries would show that all the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body and the weapon of offence used by the accused was Dang. Thus, the seat of the injuries suffered by Balbir singh deceased and the weapon of offence used by the accused go to show that the accused never intended to cause his death. For framing a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, mens area to kill the deceased is one of the essential ingredients, which is altogether missing in the present case. In the case reported as Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 S.C. 654, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that "the fact that no injury was inflicted on any vital part of the body of the deceased, goes to show that in the circumstances of the case, the intention of the appellant was not to kill the deceased outright...." Ultimately, it was held that the appellant in the said case should have been convicted under Section 304(1) and not under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. On the same footing are the facts of the present case. On the same footing are the facts of the present case. In case the accused intended to kill the deceased they would have caused injuries on the vital part of the body and some deadly weapon would have been used by them for inflicting the injuries, which go to show that the accused, who were four in number, never intended to take the life of the deceased. Rather their intention was only to incapacitate him. 5. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, declining the prayer of the petitioner to convert the charge from Section 304, I.P.C., to the one under Section 302 I.P.C. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression on the merits of the case.