S. L. KOCHAR, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 1st August 1995. passed by learned III Addi. Sessions Judge, Shajapur, in Sessions Trial No. 251/1993. convicting accused persons for the offence u/s. 323/34 IPC, sentenced to R. I or one year and fine of Rs. 100/each and also for causing simple injury to Rukminibai u/s. 323/34 IPC. sentenced to R. I. for one year and fine of Rs. 100/ -. Both the sentences were directed to run consecutively. Whereas the State has flied the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal of appellants for the offence punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC, the accused have pressed the appeal against their conviction. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case as unfolded before the trial Court was that on 17-5- 1993, the incident of marpeet had taken place between complainant Motilal and the appellants on account of dispute over fencing and fixing divider. This fencing was fixed by accused Babulal. On objection, they started assaulting Motilal. When her daughter Rukminibai tried to intervene to pacify the accused persons she was caught by fourth accused Krishnabai. Rukminibai was also assaulted by Kailash. After assault, accused persons left the scene of occurrence. The incident was witnessed by Dhula Ba. The FIR was lodged on the same day by Mottlal on which Crime No. 160/1993 was registered. ( 3 ) RUKMINIBAI was medically examined on 18-5-1993 by Dr. D. S. Mehta (PW. 9 ). He found four injuries on her person and all were simple in nature. His initial medical report is EX. P. 11. Her general condition was normal at that time. She died in the hospital on 25-5-1993, after about 8-9 days from the date of incident. In X-ray examination of skull of deceased Hukminibai no fracture or any kind of bony injuries were found. In postmortem examination also no fracture was found on skull. There was swelling in the brain. According to the evidence of Dr. D. S. Mehta (PW. 9), the injury on the head was simple in nature and deceased died because of infection in the membrane of meanings (meningitis ). Dr. P. S. Patidar (PW. 3) examined complainant Motilal and found some simple injury on his person. ( 4 ) IN paragraph No. 16. Dr. D. S. Mehta (PW. D. S. Mehta (PW. 9), the injury on the head was simple in nature and deceased died because of infection in the membrane of meanings (meningitis ). Dr. P. S. Patidar (PW. 3) examined complainant Motilal and found some simple injury on his person. ( 4 ) IN paragraph No. 16. Dr. D. S. Mehta (PW. 9) has given specific statement that the injury No. 1 according to the report of Dr. P. S. Patidar (Ex. D. 2), there was no abnormality available, therefore, this, Injury was simple and in the ordinary course of nature, same could not cause her death. According to this expert witness, the cause of death was because of respiratory failure due to swelling inside the brain matter because of development of infection in membrane of meanings. There was pus formation in the injury also. ( 5 ) AFTER investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against accused persons and fourth accused Krishnabai who has been acquitted by the trial Court. After death of Rukminibai, police has also registered offence U/ss. 302/34 and 307/34 IPC against the accused persons. The accused persons have denied the charges and contended that they were falsely implicated. The learned trial Court after examining the prosecution witnesses and hearing both the parties convicted accused persons only for the offences punishable u/s. 323/34 IPC in two counts. Whereas acquitted all of them from the charges punishable U/s. 302/34 IPC. Aggrieved, the State has also preferred appeal. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record the situation emerged is that the incident had taken place all of a sudden on a very trivial issue between two families who were neighbours at the time of incident and in the said unfortunate incident, complainant Motilal and deceased Rukminibai received some simple injuries caused by hard and blunt objects. None had suffered any serious injuries on their person but deceased died after about 8 days because of infection in membrane of meaninges resulting into respiratory failure. It is not in dispute that initially all the injuries were simple in nature and underneath the injury of head, there was no fracture of skull bone or any damage to any vital organ ort part of the body. ( 7 ) THE incident had taken place all of a sudden on account of fixing a boundary. It is not in dispute that initially all the injuries were simple in nature and underneath the injury of head, there was no fracture of skull bone or any damage to any vital organ ort part of the body. ( 7 ) THE incident had taken place all of a sudden on account of fixing a boundary. Therefore, it would be very difficult to say that accused persons were having common intention to commit murder of Rukminibai and in furtherance of the common intention, they assembled there and caused injuries on her person. Deceased remained hospitalised for 8-9 days and died because of respiratory failure on account of pus formation on the membrane of brain. The other injuries on her person were simple in nature and did not contribute to her death. Injury on her head was also simple in nature. There was no fracture. ( 8 ) THE prosecution case has been supported by PW. 1 Motilal who too was assaulted and received injuries. This version is corroborated by the FIR and as well as medical evidence. In paragraph 47 of the judgment, the learned trial Court has held that the statement of injured witness (PW. 1) Motilal was duly corroborated by statement of Sabirkhan (PW. 4 ). Dr. P. S. Patidar (PW. 3) and Dr. D. S. Mehta (PW. 9 ). According to all these witnesses Injured suffered simple injuries. They were not having any fracture and injuries were caused by blunt objects. ( 9 ) AFTER detailed appreciation of evidence on record, we are of the view that there is absolutely no illegality. Infirmity or perversity in the judgment and finding arrived by the trial Court by acquitting the accused persons from the offence punishable u/s. 302/34 of IPC and instead thereof, convicting them u/s. 323/34 IPC in two count i. e. for causing simple injury to deceased Rukminibai and Motilal (PW. 1 ). Since deceased Rukminibai did not died because of direct impact of injury caused by the accused persons, they have been rightly not found guilty by the trial Court for the offence u/s. 302 IPC. The accused persons would be responsible only for their act and the Injuries caused by them. In support of this conclusion reference can safely be made to the following judgments. The accused persons would be responsible only for their act and the Injuries caused by them. In support of this conclusion reference can safely be made to the following judgments. (1) Pirthi v. State of Haryana (2) Kishan Chand and another v. State of Punjab (3) Dev Raj v. State of Punjab (4) Bhagwan Singh and another v. State of Bihar (5) Sumer Sai v. State of M. P. (6) Nirmal Kumar v. State of U. P. (7) State of MP v. Bhagwat. ( 10 ) THERE is clear and unambiguous evidence available on record to come to the conclusion that deceased Rukminibai did not die because of direct result of injury but she died because of development of infection and the same could develop because of so many reasons for which accused persons could not be held responsible. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted them for their initial act of causing simple injury which has not contributed for death of deceased. ( 11 ) IN the light of the aforesaid fact and feature of this case, we find that the conviction of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 614/1995 is just and proper. Therefore, same is upheld. They remained in jail for one month and also deposited the amount of fine. Therefore, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 each in both the count. Out of realisation of this fine amount, Rs. 5. 000. 00 be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The accused persons are on bail. On depositing the fine amount as directed above, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. ( 12 ) WITH this modification, the appeal of the appellants is partly allowed. Criminal appeal No. 869/1995 filed by the State, having no substance is hereby dismissed. ( 13 ) ORIGINAL judgment shall be retained in the record of Criminal Appeal No. 614/1995 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of Criminal Appeal No. 869/1995. Appeal disposed of. .