Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 897 (RAJ)

Suwa Bai v. State of Rajasthan

2003-07-01

KHEM CHAND SHARMA, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2003
Honble K.C. SHARMA, J.–Since trial in both the appeals was conducted separately, the witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited separately, therefore, it would be profitable to narrate the facts in both the appeals separately. Facts relating to D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 546/97: (2). The accused appellants were put on trial for committing murder of Dhappi. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli found the accused appellants guilty of the offences charged with and accordingly convicted them for offence under Sections 302/149 IPC and 148 IPC and sentenced each of the accused to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- on the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one years with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default thereof, each to undergo 3 months imprisonment, on the second count. (3). The relevant facts of the case are that on 12.7.95 at 7.00 PM, PW2 Hari Ram submitted a written report, Ex.P.18 at Police Station, Masalpur, district Karauli alleging therein that on the day of incident at about 12 in the noon, deceased Dhappi Ram S/O Shri Bherulal Meena of village Narayana was sitting at the `Chopal (Anthai) and number of residents of the village (namely, Madan, Heera Lal, Babu Lal, Thandi Ram, Mohar Singh, Rati Ram, Amar Lal etc.) along with the complaint were also sitting there. All of a sudden, accused Shiv Singh S/O Handu and Vijay Singh S/O Halke Meena of the village came at the Chopal. Accused Vijay Singh caught hold of legs of the deceased, while accused Shiv Singh caught hold of his hands. Thereafter accused Bhagwan Singh, Sadhu, Halke, Handu, Suwa Bai W/O Handu, Virma W/O Shiv Singh and Channo Meena W/O Bhagwan Singh who were accompanying accused Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh and sere armed with Kulhari, Gandasi, Dhariya, Farsa and Lathi started belabouring Dhappi. Soon after reaching there, accused Bhagwan Singh inflicted a Gandasi blow on the head of Dhappi, while Sadu and Handu inflicted Farsha blow on his back and waist. Deceased Dhappi managed to run away towards the village, so as to save his life. All the accused then chased the deceased and ultimately succeeded in making the deceased to fall at the `Dhura (heap of dirt) of Radha Kishan Meena. Deceased Dhappi managed to run away towards the village, so as to save his life. All the accused then chased the deceased and ultimately succeeded in making the deceased to fall at the `Dhura (heap of dirt) of Radha Kishan Meena. Thereafter accused Bhawan Singh, Sadu, Handu, Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh struck blows by Gandasi, Farsa and Kulhari on various parts of the body of deceased. It was then alleged that accused Suwa Bai, Virma and Chano struck Farsha and Kulhari blows on the paws of both hands of the deceased, as a result thereof, both the both the hands were cut from wrist joint. Having found Dhappi dead, all the accused returned back to their home. As per the report, the complainant went there and when he straighten the deceased, he asked for water. The complainant fetched water and served it to the deceased. In the mean time, Saroop, Bhoru, and Davjeet came there and brought the deceased to home, where he last breathed and passed away. (4). On the basis of above report, police registered a case against the accused persons vide FIR, Ex.P.33 and proceed with the investigation. In the course of investigation, police rushed to the place of incident and prepared site plan, Ex.P.8 and seized blood smeared and controlled soil vide memo Ex.P.9. The police got conducted autopsy on the dead body and collected the post mortem report, Ex.P.23. The doctor, who conducted autopsy found as many as 16 incised wounds on the person of deceased. In his opinion, the cause of dead was excessive haemorrhage. The police seized the blood stained cloths of the deceased vide seizure memo, Ex.P.1. On 16.7.95, police arrested accused Mst. Suwa Bai vide memo Ex.P.6. Accused Handu was arrested on 4.8.95 vide memo Ex.P.22. Accused Sadhu and Bhagwan Singh were arrested vide memos Ex.P.25 and P.26, respectively. Police seized the blood stained `Kurta of accused Hundu and blood stained Dhoti of accused Bhagwan Singh vide memos Ex.P.12 and P.13, respectively. Accused Sadhu, Bhagwan Singh and Handu furnished informations Exs.P.28, 29 and 30 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as regards recovery of Farsa, Gandasi and Farsa, respectively. Pursuant to the information, Ex.P.27 furnished by accused Suwa Bai, the police recovered a Kulhari at her instance vide memo Ex.P.3 and also prepared site plan, Ex.P4 of the place of recovery of Kulhari. Pursuant to the information, Ex.P.27 furnished by accused Suwa Bai, the police recovered a Kulhari at her instance vide memo Ex.P.3 and also prepared site plan, Ex.P4 of the place of recovery of Kulhari. The police also recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons, except Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh, in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli and since Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh were absconding, the investigation was kept pending against them under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. (5). The learned Magistrate, having found the case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge. (6). The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing counsel for the parties and on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it, framed charges against the accused appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and got exhibited numerous documents. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the explanation, accused Hanu stated that about 3 years prior to this incident deceased Dhappi had committed rape on the wife of his son Shiv Singh, after forcibly entering into his house and for this reason the deceased and his family members had ill will against them. He further explained that deceased could not get the bail and was declared absconder and ultimately he became dacoit. It was explained that deceased had enmity with number of persons and therefore, it cannot be said as to who murdered him. It was for this reason that he and his family members have been falsely implicated in the present case. In their defence, the accused examined DW 1 Purushottam and DW 2 Devi Charan. (7). At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found the charges established against the accused appellants and accordingly convicted them for offence under Sections 148 IPC and 302/149 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months on the second count, vide impugned judgment dated 8.10.2002. Hence, the present appeal against conviction and sentence. Facts relating to Appeal No. 1034/2001: (8). That as mentioned above, accused appellants Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh absconded during investigation and could not be arrested inspite of best efforts hence charge sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. was filed against them. Later on, accused appellant Shiv Singh was arrested on 6.07.2001 vide arrest memo Ex.P.14 and accused Vijay Singh was also arrested on the same day vide arrest memo Ex.P.15. A farsi was recovered in the instance and information, Ex.P.16 of accused appellant Shiv Singh vide recovery memo Ex.P.11. Similarly an axe was recovered at the instance and information, Ex.P.17 of accused appellant Vijay Singh vide recovery memo Ex.P.12. The Investigating Officer, Police Station Masalpur after arrest of the accused appellants Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh submitted a charge sheet against them before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli on 17.09.2001 who, in turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions. Charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC were framed against them on 29.6.2002, to which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. In their statements under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. the accused appellants denied the allegations and stated that they have been implicated falsely. It may be stated that out of 15 witnesses, 10 witnesses examined in this case, namely, PW1 Hari Ram, PW2 Prahlad, PW3 Kajodya PW4 Tej Ram PW5 Rati Ram, PW6 Shyam Sunder, PW7 Raju, PW8 Swaroop Lal, PW9 Pappu, PW12 Randheer Singh and PW13 Dr. Hari Mohan Meena had already been examined during trial in Sessions Case No. 97/95 against Smt. Suwa and others. (9). At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found the charges established against the accused appellants and accordingly convicted them for offence under Sections 148 IPC and 302/149 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months on the second count, vide impugned judgment dated 10.07.2002. Hence, the present appeal against conviction and sentence. (10). Though, trial in both the appeals were conducted separately, but since both the appeals arise out of the same incident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. (11). It may be noted that accused Handu died during the pendency of appeal before this court and a death certificate is also available on record. Since appellant Handu died during pendency of appeal on 28.12.2002 and none of his relatives within 30 days of his death applied for leave to continue the appeal, therefore, his appeal against conviction and sentence stands abated. (12). Learned counsel for the accused appellants has contended with vehemence that it is a case in which the accused had no intention to commit the murder. The common object of the act of the accused persons was only to teach lesson by assaulting or inflicting grevious injuries as there was no grevious injury to any vulnerable part of the body and further the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased has not opined that any injury individually of commulatively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (13). We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission made on behalf of the appellants. In Sessions Case No. 97/95, out of 13 eye witnesses of the incident, P.W.2 Hari Ram, PW 3 Prahlad, PW9 Rati Ram and PW18 Swaroop Lal have fully supported the prosecution case. PW7 Madan, PW11 Thandi, PW 12 Roop Singh and PW15 Mohar Singh have not at all supported the prosecution case, while PW8 Heera Lal, PW10 Kajodya, PW 13 Brahma Lal, PW17 Raju Lal and PW20 Kirodi have partly supported the prosecution case. PW 2 Hari Ram has stated in his examination-in- chief that about 5-6 months back, at about 12 in the noon, he along with Madan, Heera Lal, Rati Ram, Prahlad, Amar Lal, Thandi and Raju etc. were sitting at the `Hathai of Narain. Deceased Dhappi was also sitting there. All of a sudden, accused Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh came there and caught the hands and legs of Dhappi. were sitting at the `Hathai of Narain. Deceased Dhappi was also sitting there. All of a sudden, accused Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh came there and caught the hands and legs of Dhappi. Other persons were also accompanying the accused. He further stated that Bhagwan Singh, Sadu Handu and Saui Bai etc. had also come with Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh. Immediately on reaching there, accused Bhagwan Singh inflicted Gandasi blow on the head of Dhappi, while accused Handu inflicted Farsa blow on the waist of Dhappi, Sadu inflicted Farsa blow on the back of Dhappi. Thereafter, deceased Dhappi ran away. However, the accused continued to beat him and Dhappi went on running. Ultimately, accused made deceased Dhappi to fall at the ``Dhuda. He further stated that Bhagwan Singh and Mst. Sua Bai cut both the hands of Dhappi. Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh inflicted injury on the back and waist of Dhappi and Sadu inflicted injury on leg of Dhappi. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that his house is adjacent to the house of deceased Dhappi and Dhappi was his cousin brother. He stated that a case involving offence of rape was pending against deceased Dhappi. According to this witness, accused Handu had made an accusation against Dhappi deceased that about 8-9 months prior, Dhappi had committed rape on Virma, his daughter-in-law. The witness denied the fact that Dhappi used to commit offences. PW3 Prahlad Kumar Meena, PW9 Ratti Ram and PW18 Swaroop Lal have stated similar to what PW2 Heera Lal has stated. (14). PW8 Heera Lal has stated only to the extent that accused Bhagwan Singh and Vijay Singh had caught- hold of deceased Dhappi and had given beating to Dhappi. 5 - 6 persons had also given beating to Dhappi. The witness disclosed the name of the assailants as Sadhu, Handu, Sua Bai, Bhagwan Singh, Vijay Singh and Shiv Singh. Having sustained 2-3 blows, Dhappi ran away towards Dhuda. The witness stated that he could not say as to what happened thereafter. PW10 Kajodya has stated that when he was at his home, at 12 in the noon and was taking meals, he heard hue and cry and when he saw towards Hathai, he found that Dhappi with profuse bleeding was running and Sua Bai, Handu, Bhagwan Singh Shi Singh, Vijay Singh and Sadu were going behind Dhappi. PW10 Kajodya has stated that when he was at his home, at 12 in the noon and was taking meals, he heard hue and cry and when he saw towards Hathai, he found that Dhappi with profuse bleeding was running and Sua Bai, Handu, Bhagwan Singh Shi Singh, Vijay Singh and Sadu were going behind Dhappi. According to this witness, since he was at his house, therefore, he cannot say as to which of the accused had what kind of weapons. He did not see any accused giving beating. PW 17 Raju Lal has deposed that he along with Hari Ram, Ram Lal, Madan, Thandi, Girriraj, Kirodi, Mohar Singh, Ratti Ram etc. were sitting at the Hathai at about 12 - 1 p.m. and deceased Dhappi was also present there. All of a sudden, accused Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh came there, caught hold of Dhappi and inflicted injuries. Accused Handu, Sua Bai, Shiv Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Sadu, Virma, Chinno etc. inflicted Gandasi, Kulhari and Farsa blow on Dhappi. He does not know as to which accused inflicted first blow. Dhappi fled towards Dhuda and the accused persons along with their weapons, chased him. Similarly, PW20 Kirodi has deposited that at about 12 in the noon, 5-6 persons were sitting at the Hathai. Deceased Dhappi was also sitting there. He further stated that he, Raju, Mohar Singh, Ram Kishan, Madan, Heera Lal and more persons were also sitting there and were busy in talking with each other. According to this witness, Handu, Bhagwan Singh and Shiv Singh had beaten deceased Dhappi and he had seen only these three persons. He deposed that Handu had a Kulhari and accused Shiv Singh and Bhagwan Singh were empty handed. (15). Similarly, in Sessions Case No. 118/2001, the witnesses except PW 1 Bharat Lal, PW2 Hari Ram, PW 3 Prahlad, PW 5 Kajodya, PW7 Ratti Ram, PW8 Raju and Swaroop Lal have supported the prosecution case. (16). From the statements of eye witnesses in both the sessions cases, it is crystal clear that when deceased Dhappi along with others was sitting on `Athai (common meeting place of villagers), accused Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh came there and caught the legs and hands of deceased Dhappi. Thereafter, other accused persons inflicted injuries to him. (16). From the statements of eye witnesses in both the sessions cases, it is crystal clear that when deceased Dhappi along with others was sitting on `Athai (common meeting place of villagers), accused Shiv Singh and Vijay Singh came there and caught the legs and hands of deceased Dhappi. Thereafter, other accused persons inflicted injuries to him. When Dhappi managed to escape from there, the accused persons chased him and again belaboured him and then left to their house. Soon thereafter, Dhappi died. The eye witnesses examined in Sessions Case No. 97/95, though have stated that Mst. Sua Bai had accompanied other accused appellants and came with them at `Athai, but witness Ratti Ram in cross-examination has admitted that in his police statement Ex.D/3 it has wrongly been mentioned that Mst. Sua Bai came at `Athai in the beginning. Therefore, in view of the statement of Ratti Ram, it cannot be concluded that Mst. Sua Bai was also a member of unlawful assembly. Since she arrived at the scene of occurrence at the time when other accused after inflicting injuries on Dhappi at `Athai were chasing him and there she also inflicted injury by axe on the hands of Dhappi. However, Sua Bai inflicted grievous injury by axe on the hands of Dhappi, which fact finds support from Ex.P/23. In this view of the matter, Mst. Sua Bai can be said to be responsible for her individual act. The other accused-appellants, in furtherance of their common object to commit murder of Dhappi, came together at `Athai, inflicted injuries with sharp edged formidable weapons on various parts of the body and when Dhappi escaped from their clutches they chased him and again inflicted injuries on his body and left the place together and soon thereafter, Dhappi died on the spot. All the above facts and circumstances, i.e., formidable weapons used in beating, helpless state of unarmed victim, intensity of violence, persistent assault in the background of previous animosity between the parties (allegation of rape against deceased) indicate that the accused were members of unlawful assembly and their common object was to murder Dhappi and in furtherance of their common object, the accused intentionally inflicted injuries on the person of Dhappi, resulting into his death. (17). (17). Now, the sole question, which emerges for our consideration is, whether the accused appellants could not be convicted under Section 302, IPC, as they inflicted injuries on non-vital parts of the body of deceased and the doctor has also not opined that the injuries, individually or collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (18). Before adverting to the above argument, it would be profitable to refer the statements of PW22/13 Dr. Hari Mohan Meena, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Dhappi and found following ante-mortem incised wound on the body of deceased: 1. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm over the right parietal region above from right ear clotted blood present around wound, fracture not seen, 2. Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on the left side of occipital region of head 1 cm away from left ear, clotted blood present around wound, 3. Incised wound 11 cm x 6 cm x 4 cm on the Rt side of back of chest just below Rt scapula, Lower end of scapula, clear cut seen with necked eye, clotted blood present in wound, Fractured. 4. Incised wound 8 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm on the left shoulder Joint including Lt scapular region, scapula bone clear cut fractured seen with necked eye, clotted blood present in the wound. 5. Incised wound 9 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm on the upper 3rd of lateral aspect of right lower arm, just below Rt elbow joint, both bone clear cut seen fractured seen with necked eye, clotted blood present. 6. Incised wound 8 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm on the 1st to 5 metacarple region at Rt hand, all metacarple bones are fractured, seen with nacked eye, clotted blood present in wound. 7. Incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm on the 2nd to 4th metacarple region of Lt hand, all 2nd to 4th metacarples bones fractured seen with necked eye, clotted blood present. 8. Incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm on the lower 3rd of medical aspect of Lt lower arm, 6 cm above from Lt wrist, muscle bone clear cut seen, clotted blood present, 9. 8. Incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm on the lower 3rd of medical aspect of Lt lower arm, 6 cm above from Lt wrist, muscle bone clear cut seen, clotted blood present, 9. Incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm on the lower 3rd of medical aspect of Left lower arm, 4 cm above Lt. wrist joint. 10. Incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm on the 2nd phalarges of 2nd and 3rd metacarple bone of Lt hand, both bones fractured, seen with nacked eye, both fingers separated, clotted blood present in wound, 11. Incised wound 2 cm x 2 cm on the distle end of Lt thumb at the end of thumb not present, bone fractured, clotted blood around wound, 12. Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm on the Lower 3rd of.......aspect of Lt leg, 15 cm above Lt ankle joint, Libia bone fractured seen with naked eye, clotted blood present in wound. 13. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on the front of Lower 3rd of left leg, 12 cm above from Lt ankle joint, clotted blood present, 14. Abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm on the Rt knee joint, 15. Incised wound 9 cm x 5 cm x 3 cm on the upper 3rd of left buttock, clotted blood present in wound. 16. Incised wound 8 cm x 5 cm x 4 cm over the middle 3rd of left buttock. (19). The cause of death of deceased has been stated to be excessive haemmorhage. (20). No doubt, the doctor does not state in his evidence that the injuries either individually or cummulatively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, but the court has to form its opinion after looking at the injuries. (21). In all such cases where a person dies, it is the duty of the prosecution to put a question to the doctor as to the nature of injuries. The court is not a disinterested spectator of the contest between the prosecution and defence, therefore, it should take an intelligent interest in the proceedings and make an earnest endeavour to get at the truth if some important aspect or obscurity is left out either by the defence or the prosecution. The court is not a disinterested spectator of the contest between the prosecution and defence, therefore, it should take an intelligent interest in the proceedings and make an earnest endeavour to get at the truth if some important aspect or obscurity is left out either by the defence or the prosecution. In the case at hand, both the prosecutor and the trial court failed in their duty to ascertain the nature of injuries by not putting a question to the doctor who conducted autopsy. (22). In the instant case, beating was premeditated and calculated. The aim of the assailents was to smash the arms and legs of the deceased and they succeeded in their design. Causing no less than 16 incised wounds including fractures of most of the bones of the legs and arms i.e. both bones of right lower arm, Ist to 5th metacarple bone of right hand, 2nd to 4th metacarple bone of left hand, muscle and bones of Lt. lower arm, 2nd and 3rd metacarple bone of left hand, thumb of left hand and tibia bone as also the bones of right and left scapula. The weapons were lethal. All these acts of accused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. The mere fact that the beating was designedly confined to the legs, arms and back though there were two injuries on right parietal and right occipital region also) or that none of the multiple injuries inflicted was individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death will not exclude the application of Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC. The accused duly armed with deadly weapons mercilessly belaboured the deceased and caused as many as 16 incised wounds on the person of deceased. The injuries were either on his head or back or shoulder or fore-arms and on the legs. Any one who causes injuries with weapons of the kind that the appellants used must be fixed with the intention of causing such bodily injury or injuries as would fall within Section 300 IPC. (23). In our considered view, the injury to a vital part of the body is not necessarily an ingredient to determine whether the case falls under Sec. 300 IPC or not. (23). In our considered view, the injury to a vital part of the body is not necessarily an ingredient to determine whether the case falls under Sec. 300 IPC or not. In the present case, the injuries on non vital parts had the cumulative effect subscribing in high probability to death though each of them may not be individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Causing of such injuries intentionally with premeditation would come within the ambit of bodily injuries in Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC. We are fortified in our view by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anda vs. State of Rajasthan (1), wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have held as under: ``In this case the accused beat Bherun inside a house after dragging him there. The number of injurie shows, that all took part. His arms and legs were smashed and many bruises and lacerated wound were caused on his person. The injuries intended to be caused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The assault was thus murderous and it must have been apparent to all the assailants that the injuries they were inflicting in furtherence of the common intention of all were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the offence was not murder but only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (24). Reference may also be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another (2), wherein their Lordships considered the above cited case of Anda vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), and held as under: ``The ratio of Anda vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1966 SC 148 ) (supra), applies in full force to the facts of the present case. Here, a direct casual connection between the act of the accused and the death was established. The injuries were the direct cause of the death. No secondary factor such as gangrene, tetanus etc., supervened. There was no doubt whatever that the beating was premeditated and calculated. Here, a direct casual connection between the act of the accused and the death was established. The injuries were the direct cause of the death. No secondary factor such as gangrene, tetanus etc., supervened. There was no doubt whatever that the beating was premeditated and calculated. Just as in Andas case, here also, the aim of the assailants was to smash the arms and legs of the deceased, and they succeeded in design, causing no less than 19 injuries, including fractures of most of the bones of the legs and the arms. While in Andas case, the sticks used by the assailants were not specifically dangerous, in the instant case, they were unusually havy, lethal weapons. All these acts of the accused were pre-planned and intentional, which considered objectively in the light of the medical evidence, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The mere fact that the beating was designedly confined by the assailants to the legs and arms, or that none of the multiple injuries inflicted was individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, will not exclude the application of clause 3rdly of Section 300. The expression ``bodily injury in clause 3rdly includes also its plural so that the clause would cover a case where all the injuries intentionally caused by the accused are cumulatively sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature, even if none of those injuries individually measures up to such sufficiency. The `sufficiency spoken of in this clause as already noticed is the high probability of death in ordinary course of nature and if such sufficiency exists and death is caused and the injury causing it is intentional the case would fall under clause 3rdly of Section 300. All the conditions which are a prerequisite for the applicability of this clause have been established and the offence committed by the accused in the instant case was `murder. (25). The ratio of above cited both the cases apply in full force to the facts of the present case, which was lateron followed in Jalam etc. etc. All the conditions which are a prerequisite for the applicability of this clause have been established and the offence committed by the accused in the instant case was `murder. (25). The ratio of above cited both the cases apply in full force to the facts of the present case, which was lateron followed in Jalam etc. etc. vs. State (3), (Allahabad High Court), wherein it was held :- ``We are unable to hold that the injuries caused on legs and hands had no concern with the death of the deceased for the reasons the injuries were inflicted till the deceased took his last breath, as such it can only be said that those injuries were simple injuries or the injuries on non-vital parts were caused with the intention or knowledge that those injuries, in most probability, would cause death. Each of 13 injuries on non-vital parts had also the comulative effect subscribing in high probability to death, though each of them may not be individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Causing of such injuries intentionally with pre-medication and pre-plan would come within the ambit of bodily injuries in clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. (26). The authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellants i.e. Kalinder Bharik vs. State of HP (4), has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in this case, out of nine injuries found on the person of deceased wife none of the injuries was said to be individually or collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, in as much as all the internal organs were found normal and there was no fracture of bones. (27). In the result, the conviction of accused appellants Shiv Singh, Vijay Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Sadhu under Sections 148 and 302/149 and the sentences awarded thereunder by the learned trial court are maintained and their appeal stands dismissed. The conviction of accused appellant Suwa Bai under Sections 148 and 302/149 and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. Instead she is convicted under Section 326 IPC. As regard sentence to be awarded, looking to her old age i.e. 75-76 years, we feel that ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced to the period already undergone. Accordingly while convicting Smt. Suwa, we sentence her to the period already undergone by her. Instead she is convicted under Section 326 IPC. As regard sentence to be awarded, looking to her old age i.e. 75-76 years, we feel that ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced to the period already undergone. Accordingly while convicting Smt. Suwa, we sentence her to the period already undergone by her. As stated above, since accused Handu died during pendency of his appeal, the appeal filed by him stands abated. Appellant Mst. Suwa Bai is already on bail. She need not surrender to the bail bonds, which stand cancelled.