JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset did not dispute the incident. He only submitted that the manner in which the incident had occurred is not indicative of the fact that any of the accused persons intended to cause death. As per prosecution story both the accused persons have been attributed single injury per head. One who intends to cause death would not stop after hitting one blow, if he actually intends to cause death as the prosecution story goes one blow was hit by Babu on the head and then the injured Bhakra fell down. Thereafter, Ram Lal gave blow on leg. Neither of these two accused persons have been attributed any recreation The deceased had not succumbed to the injuries immediately. The injured was shifted to Ahmedabad there he was admitted in the hospital and after being admitted in the hospital treatment was administered to the injured for a long period. The incident is of 9th October whereas the deceased alleged to have died on 19th October. A long time has been taken thus, it cannot. be said that the accused persons inflicting injuries, had any intention to cause death, may be some knowledge can be attributed to the person who had hit on the head of the injured when he inflicted injury with an iron rod. 2. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. None of the accused persons have repeated the blows, it cannot be said that it had meeting of minds before inflicting the injuries on the deceased. The accused who is alleged to have inflicted injury on the head can be said to be at least knowledge to the effect that if a head injury is caused on the injured, than it may result into the death which has really resulted into the death of the deceased after the gap of 10 days. Thus, bringing the case within the definition of clause firstly under section 300 is not made out. A case of culpable homicide may be said to be made out. We deem it proper to not to sustain the conviction of the accused-Babu under section 302 Indian Penal Code. We deem it proper that he may be convicted under section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. A case of culpable homicide may be said to be made out. We deem it proper to not to sustain the conviction of the accused-Babu under section 302 Indian Penal Code. We deem it proper that he may be convicted under section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. He at least can be attributed with the knowledge of his act and thus sentence of 8 years is just and proper. 3. The other accused who is alleged to have caused injury on the leg has followed the act of Babu. His act was positive that he did not want to cause such injury which can be said to be sufficient to cause death. The injury caused by him has resulted into a fracture on leg. Thus, Ram Lal can be said to be responsible for causing grievous injury to the injured and, therefore, his conviction under section 302 Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. He is liable to be convicted under section 325. Consequently, his conviction and sentences under section 302 Indian Penal Code are set aside and he is convicted under section 325 Indian Penal Code. He being a young boy of 18 years and some months at the time of incident we deem it proper that the two years sentence be awarded to him which is roughly the time for which the accused has remained behind the bars. He is on bail. He is not required to surrender to his bail bonds. The bail bonds stands discharged. 4. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******