Judgment R. S. MOHITE, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal no. 163 of 2000 has been filed by four appellants i. e. Pandurang s/o. Isa Bolwat (hereinafter referred to as accused no. 1), tukaram s/o. Balbhim Chikne (hereinafter referred to as accused no. 2), Sukhdeo s/o. Balbhim Chikne (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 3) and Balbhim s/o. Pandu Chikne (hereinafter referred to as accused no. 4 ). The said appeal has been filed by the accused impugning the judgment and order dated 03-04-2000 passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1995, convicting all the aforesaid four accused for offences punishable under Sections 304, part II and 323 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code. (I) For the offence punishable under section 304, Part II each of the accused has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. (II) For the offence punishable under section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for seven days. ( 2 ) BY the impugned judgment and order, all the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and it is against this acquittal that the state has filed Criminal appeal No. 334 of 2000 ( 3 ) BY a prior order passed by the division Bench of this Court, Criminal Appeal no. 163 of 2000 was directed to be heard alongwith Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2000 filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused. In the circumstances we have heard both the appeals and are disposing of the same by this common judgment and order. ( 4 ) THE brief facts of the prosecution case were as under (A) Accused no 1 Pandurang was the real brother of deceased Gorakh. Accused no. 1 pandurang was married to one Jijabai. Accused no. 4 Balbhim is the father of Jijabai and accused No. 2 Tukaram and accused no. 3 sukhdeo were Jijabai's real brothers. Accused no. 1 Pandurang and deceased Gorakh were the sons of Isa Bolwat. Accused no. 1 pandurang was married to one Jijabai. Accused no. 4 Balbhim is the father of Jijabai and accused No. 2 Tukaram and accused no. 3 sukhdeo were Jijabai's real brothers. Accused no. 1 Pandurang and deceased Gorakh were the sons of Isa Bolwat. Their mother was one sujanbai who had expired about a month prior to the date of the incident which occurred on 12-01-1994. Sujanbai had expired leaving behind her 15 acres of land in her name. After her death, the said 15 acres of land were being cultivated by the deceased Gorakh. Accused no. 1 Pandurang was unhappy about this fact and was demanding that his brother Gorakh should partition this land and give him his share. The land of Sujanbai had, therefore, become a reason for quarrel between the two brothers i. e. accused no. 1 Pandurang and deceased gorakh. These two accused as well as the other accused were all residing at Village bagalwadi situated in Taluka Bhoom District osmanabad. (B) On the date of the incident i. e. on 12-01-1994 P. W. 2 Suresh son of deceased gorakh left his house to go to the flour mill at wadachiwadi, situated at 5 kms, away from his village. He left the house to go to the flour mill at about 6. 30 a. m. While returning back to his home he heard a commotion in his land. He saw that his father and mother were being assaulted. He saw accused no. 1 Pandurang holding a stick and accused Nos. 2 to 4 carrying stones. His father Gorakh was lying and rolling on the ground. He saw accused no. 1 pandurang inflicting blows with stick on the chest, back and ribs of his father Gorakh. He also saw accused nos. 2 to 4 inflicting stones injuries on the head and other parts of body of his father. When his mother tried to rescue her husband, accused no. 1 Pandurang inflicted a stick blow on her left eye and accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 assaulted her by means of fists and kicks. However, as soon as the accused saw p. W. 2 Suresh, they all ran away from the scene. The mother of P. W. 2 Suresh i. e. P. W. 3 laxmibai went towards the deceased who told her that he had been assaulted by all the accused. 2, 3 and 4 assaulted her by means of fists and kicks. However, as soon as the accused saw p. W. 2 Suresh, they all ran away from the scene. The mother of P. W. 2 Suresh i. e. P. W. 3 laxmibai went towards the deceased who told her that he had been assaulted by all the accused. P. W. 3 Laxmibai then brought water for the deceased. P. W. 2 Suresh went to the cattle shed and brought a bullock cart. Gorakh was taken to the hospital in the bullock cart but on way he died. The dead-body of Gorakh was kept on the door-step of his house. P. W. 2 suresh then went walking to village Pathrod and narrated the incident to P. W. 4 Ishwar Kate who was the mediator in the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. They then went to the house of Police Patil Trimbak Borade and thereafter to Bhoom where P. W. 2 Suresh lodged his First Information Report (Exhibit 45) at Bhoom Police Station. On the basis of the first information report, P. W. 6 Motichand d. Rathod registered Crime No. 6 of 1994 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced the investigation. The investigating Officer went to the spot alongwith the complainant and prepared an inquest panchanama (Exhibit 45 ). After completion of the inquest panchanama, he sent the dead-body for post-mortem. He then went to the spot of the offence alongwith the complainant and then prepared the spot panchanama (Exhibit 46 ). While preparing the spot panchanama he collected samples of blood-stained soil. Some broken bangles were also found at the spot, which were also seized under the said panchanama. (C) On the same day i. e. 12-01-1994 the Investigating Officer arrested all the accused. The clothes of the accused no. 1 pandurang were seized under an arrest cum seizure panchanama. Three separate arrest panchanamas of accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 were prepared at Exhibits 51, 52 and 53. At the time of the arrest, their clothes found to have bloodstains and were, therefore, seized. Later on, on the same day, Constable Takale produced the clothes of the deceased after the postmortem was over and these clothes were seized by the Investigating Officer under a separate panchanama (Exhibit 37 ). The Investigating officer then recorded the statements of several witnesses. Later on, on the same day, Constable Takale produced the clothes of the deceased after the postmortem was over and these clothes were seized by the Investigating Officer under a separate panchanama (Exhibit 37 ). The Investigating officer then recorded the statements of several witnesses. (D) P. W. 3 Laxmibai was sent to the hospital as the Investigating Officer found injuries on her person. (E) On 16-01 -1994 the accused were sent to the hospital for obtaining their blood samples. The Investigating Officer P. W. 12 motichand Rathod collected 7/12 extract of the land of deceased. On 22-02-1994 he received the post-mortem report. On 16-03-1994 he sent the seized articles and samples to the Chemical analyser alongwith his covering letter. He received five separate reports from the office of the chemical Analyser. After completion of the investigation he filed the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, bhoom, on 15-04-1994. ( 5 ) AFTER committal of the case to the sessions Court and framing of the charge, trial against the accused commenced. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. P. W. 2 Suresh and P. W. 3 Laxmibai were the eye-witnesses. P. W. 1 Dr. Shivaji H. Chaudhari had conducted the post-morterm on the dead body of Gorakh and also examined p. W. 3 Laxmibai as regards the injuries suffered by her. P. W. 4 Ishwar Kate was the mediator in the family dispute. P. W. 5 Sandipan mahadeo Patil was a panch witness in respect of the seizure of clothes from the four accused. Lastly, the prosecution examined P. W. 6 PSI motichand Rathod. The accused did not lead any evidence. From the suggestions put to the witnesses and their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is clear that the defence of the accused was of total denial. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order as aforesaid and this is how two appeals came to be filed in this Court. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the accused, Shri. R. N. Dhorde, Advocate, contended that the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the interested evidence of P. W. 2 Suresh and P. W. 3 laxmibai. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the accused, Shri. R. N. Dhorde, Advocate, contended that the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the interested evidence of P. W. 2 Suresh and P. W. 3 laxmibai. It was urged that these two witnesses were the son and wife of the deceased Gorakh who was cultivating the land of his mother Sujanbai. It was contended that on the death of Sujanbai accused no. 1 pandurang had demanded a share in the land and Gorakh was denying his legitimate share. Laxmibai and Suresh were interested witnesses not only because they were son and wife of deceased Gorakh but also because the conviction of accused no. 1 Pandurang for murder would ensure that they retained their possession over the disputed land left behind by Sujanbai. It was argued that in the cross- examination of Laxmibai she admitted that when she arrived at the spot Gorakh had already fallen down and was rolling on the ground. It was pointed out that according to p. W. 2 Suresh by the time he arrived at the spot his mother was already at the spot. It was argued that in the circumstances P. W. 2 Suresh and P. W. 3 Laxmibai could not have been eyewitnesses to the incident and they might have arrived at the spot after the incident was over. It was argued that the injuries suffered by p. W. 3 Laxmibai were minor and simple in nature and could have been caused for a reason other than the alleged assault on her. It was urged that there was no sufficient material to convict accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 for offence under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That P. W. 2 suresh in his evidence had talked about the injuries on the chest, back and ribs being given by accused no. 1 Pandurang. As far as accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, Suresh talked about their inflicting stone blows on the head and other parts of the body of deceased Gorakh. No such injury was found on the head. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had nothing to gain by causing the death of Gorakh as they were from another family and would not have got any share or benefit in the land of Sujanbai. No such injury was found on the head. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had nothing to gain by causing the death of Gorakh as they were from another family and would not have got any share or benefit in the land of Sujanbai. It was pointed out that Laxmibai did not mention as to where the accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 caused injuries. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the trial Court had also held that the accused had no intention of causing the death of Gorakh. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, it was urged that Criminal Appeal no. 163 of 2000 should be allowed and criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2000 filed by the state should be dismissed. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor urged that this was a case where all the accused should be convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code. He urged that merely because there was no intention to cause death, that by itself would not absolve the accused from the offence under Section 302 as the doctor's evidence indicated that four ribs of gorakh were broken and two were fractured on right as well as left side. There was damage to the kidney and the causing six fractures with damage to a protected internal organ like a kidney indicated that blows were given to the deceased with great force. He urged that this was a case which squarely fell within the ambit of Section 300 (thirdly) and the trial Court had erred in convicting the accused for other offences merely on the ground that the accused had no intention to cause the death of Gorakh, he urged that the evidence of P. W. 2 Suresh and P. W. 3 Laxmibai was rightly believed by the trial Court. These two witnesses could not have been disbelieved only on the ground that they were interested witnesses. Even if their evidence was read with care and caution, no reason arose to discard the same. The evidence of Laxmibai to the effect that she witnessed the incident was corroborated further by the medical evidence indicating that Laxmibai had in fact suffered two injuries. The evidence of p. W 2 Suresh was also corroborated by the finding of injuries on Laxmibai. The stones used by accused nos. The evidence of Laxmibai to the effect that she witnessed the incident was corroborated further by the medical evidence indicating that Laxmibai had in fact suffered two injuries. The evidence of p. W 2 Suresh was also corroborated by the finding of injuries on Laxmibai. The stones used by accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 were seized from the spot of offence and all the four stones so seized were found to be blood-stained, with the blood being the same group as that of the deceased He, therefore, urged that Criminal appeal No. 163 of 2000 filed by the accused be dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2000 filed by the State be allowed and all the accused be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code. ( 8 ) WE have heard both the sides and perused the record. In our view, Criminal appeal No 163 of 2000 needs to be partly allowed and the conviction of accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 tor offence under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code needs to be quashed and set-aside and they are required to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, for causing simple hurt to deceased Gorakh. We further find that the state appeal is liable to be allowed partly and the conviction of the accused no 1 will have to be changed from Section 304, Part II read with Section 34, Section 302 of the Indian penal Code. In our view, the two appeals are, therefore, required to be partly allowed for the reasons which are enumerated hereinbelow. ( 9 ) AT the out-set, we find that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses P. W. 2 suresh and P. W. 3 Laxmibai is not only consistent with each other but is also corroborated by the other circumstances on record. The evidence of P. W. 2 Suresh is to the effect that while returning from the flour mill he heard a commotion arising out of quarrel from their land. He saw accused nos. 1 to 4 present there and witnessed the assault on his father and mother. He has deposed that accused no. 1 Pandurang was holding a stick and accused nos. 2 to 4 were holding stones. He saw accused nos. 1 to 4 present there and witnessed the assault on his father and mother. He has deposed that accused no. 1 Pandurang was holding a stick and accused nos. 2 to 4 were holding stones. His father Gorakh was rolling on the ground. He saw accused no. 1 Pandurang inflicting blows with the stick on the chest, back and ribs of Gorakh and saw accused nos. 2 to 4 inflicting blows with stones on his head and other parts of his body. That when his mother went to rescue Gorakh, accused No. 1 Pandurang inflicted a stick blow on her left eye. Accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 assaulted Laxmibai by means of fists and kicks. The evidence of this witness is corroborated by his first information report and there is absolutely no material contradiction in his evidence. Four omissions brought on record pertain to non-mentioning the road by which he was returning passing by his cattle shed, that he heard shouts from his land, that at the time of incident his mother was shouting and that after the incident his mother went to deceased Gorakh and he said something to her and demanded water which was brought and given to him. In our view, these omissions are not so material so as to amount to material contradictions. The evidence of this witness is corroborated by his own first information report which was lodged immediately i. e. within four hours of the incident. The incident took place at about 7. 15 a. m. and the first information report was lodged at 2. 15 pm ( 10 ) THE evidence of P. W. 3 Laxmibai contains the same version as given by P. W. 2 suresh Her presence at the spot of the incident cannot be impeached because she was an injured witness P W 1 Sr. Shivaji Chaudhari examined P. W 3 Laxmibai who was sent to him by the police. After examining her, he issued a certificate (Exhibit 40 ). He found a contusion of 4 x 2 cm. over her left eye and another contusion 5 x 4 cm. over 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs on the back right side. Both these injuries found on the body of Laxmibai were caused by a blunt and hard substance within 12 hours of the examination. He found a contusion of 4 x 2 cm. over her left eye and another contusion 5 x 4 cm. over 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs on the back right side. Both these injuries found on the body of Laxmibai were caused by a blunt and hard substance within 12 hours of the examination. It may be that laxmibai may not have reached the spot of the incident at the very beginning but the evidence given by her shows that she came there when her husband was being beaten and had fallen down. Suresh appears to have come there immediately thereafter. Merely because, laxmibai and Suresh arrived after Gorakh was assaulted, had fallen and was rolling on the ground, by itself does not mean that they have not noticed an assault on the body of Gorakh. The post-mortem notes and the evidence of p. W. 1 Dr. Chaudhari indicates that as many as eight external injuries were found on the body of deceased Gorakh. These injuries were as follows: (I) Contusion 3 x 1 inch left memorary region. (ii) Contusion 3 x inch rt. memorary region. (iii) Contusion 2 x 1 inch right lumber region posteriorly. (iv) Contusion 1 x inch below It. scapula. (v) Contusion 2 x inch below rt. scapula. (vi) Abrasion 2 x inch left hip joint. (vii) Contusion 1 inch x 1 inch above right eye. (viii)Contusion 1 x Vi inch over right shoulder. (I) Fracture of 5th, 6th, 7th ribs left side anteriorly, grievous in nature. (ii) Fracture of 5th and 6th ribs, right side anteriorly and 12th rib right side posteriorly. In the post-mortem notes, the doctor has noted two fractures on 5th, 6th and 7th ribs on left side anteriorly as external injury No. 8 (1) and fracture of 5th and 6th ribs on right side anteriorly and 12th nb on right side posteriorly as external injury No. 8 (ii ). It appears that these injuries were noted as external injuries because the fracture must have been felt on palpitation of the body. Both these fracture injuries were opined to be grievous in nature. On internal examination the doctor found a rupture of right kidney on posterior surface resulting in bleeding. The doctor opined that the cause of death was "shock due to internal bleeding due to rupture of right kidney". Both these fracture injuries were opined to be grievous in nature. On internal examination the doctor found a rupture of right kidney on posterior surface resulting in bleeding. The doctor opined that the cause of death was "shock due to internal bleeding due to rupture of right kidney". ( 11 ) IT was sought to be argued on behalf of the defence that accused no. 1 could not have had the knowledge that the blows given by him would cause rupture of kidney of the deceased He could have had no intention of causing such rupture It was thus urged that the trial Court also having held that there was no intention of causing death, this was not a case that would fall within any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the Indian penal Code and was not, therefore, a case where the acquittal under Section 302 read with section 34 could be said to be perverse. ( 12 ) ON perusing the records we find that as far as accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned they would not be the persons who would have personally gained if the land of sujanbai was partitioned. It is clear that on partition only accused no. 1 Pandurang would get his due share. The demand of Pandurang in respect of his land was clearly legal and justified and therefore, participation of accused nos 2, 3 and 4 in helping Pandurang in his attempt to demand what was due to him by itself could not be said to be an improper act. No doubt, they are said to have participated in the incident P. W 2 Suresh talked about their inflicting stones blows on the head of the deceased. We do not find any injury on the vital part of the body like head of the deceased all injuries other than injury no. 8 which caused fractures of the ribs and damage to the kidney were simple in nature There is nothing before us to indicate how exactly the incident had started We have in mind the tact that accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 were admittedly not carrying any weapons and the allegations against them were of causing injuries with stones found at the spot. We find that it would not be safe to convict accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were admittedly not carrying any weapons and the allegations against them were of causing injuries with stones found at the spot. We find that it would not be safe to convict accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part II of the indian Penal Code but it would be appropriste to convict them for offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the simple injuries caused by them to the deceased. The conviction is under Section 324 as the muddemal stones are heavy enough to qualify as dangerous weapons. This conviction will be in addition to the conviction under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian penal Code for the simple injuries caused by them to P. W. 3 Laxmibai by inflicting fist and kick blows on her. ( 13 ) INSOFAR as accused no. 1 pandurang is concerned we find that he has been wrongly convicted for offence under section 304, Part II read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The injuries suffered by the deceased indicate that accused no. 1 had given forceful blows on the ribs and chest portion of the deceased, causing fracture in the ribs at six places and damaging on internal organ like the kidney. It must be borne in mind that the deceased died immediately after the incident. In our view, even if the intention of the accused was not to cause death of the deceased yet the offence would still fall under section 300 (thirdly) as the act of accused no. 1 pandurang was clearly done with an intention of causing bodily injury to the deceased and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In this regard, the doctor in his examination-in-chief categorically mentioned that external injury no. 8 corresponding to internal injury on kidney was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. He went on to state that the cause of death was due to shock due to internal bleeding due to rupture of right kidney. In this regard, the doctor in his examination-in-chief categorically mentioned that external injury no. 8 corresponding to internal injury on kidney was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. He went on to state that the cause of death was due to shock due to internal bleeding due to rupture of right kidney. ( 14 ) ON behalf of the accused it was sought to be argued that the offence would not fall under Section 300 (thirdly) because the accused could not have intended to cause injury to kidney and would not have also known that the stick blows inflicted on the chest could cause damage to an internal organ like kidney. In this connection, we find it apt to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1958 sc 465 ) in which the Apex Court while dealing with the essential requirements to be proved for a conviction under Section 300 (thirdly) observed as under: " (11) In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily proceeds on broad lines, as, for example, whether there was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot, and whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. It is, of course, not necessary to enquire into every last detail, as, for instance, whether the prisoner intended to have the bowels fall out or whether he intended to penetrate the liver or the kidneys or the heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of anatomy could never be convicted, for, if he does not know that there is a heart or a kidney or bowels, he cannot be said to have intended to injure them. Of course, that is not the kind of enquiry. It is broad- based and simple and based on commonsense: the kind of enquiry that "twelve good men and true" could readily appreciate and understand. (12) To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under S. 300 "thirdly"; first, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. (12) To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under S. 300 "thirdly"; first, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. (13) Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout), the offence is murder under s 300 "thirdly". It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two ). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deducted, that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deducted, that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional. " ( 15 ) FROM the above analysis made by the Apex Court, which has been followed by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and another ( AIR 1977 SC 45 ), it is clear that it does not matter that there was no intention to cause death or even to cause an injury that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It does not matter that there is no knowledge that the act would be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause bodily injury is actually found to be present and is proved the enquiry is purely objective to draw an inference whether the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Such objective inference we find in this case can be based upon the evidence of P. W. 1 Dr. Chaudhari as there is absolutely no cross-examination on the point. Even as a matter of common sense it is clear that when four nbs, two each on the right and left sides, were fractured with a rupture of kidney causing bleeding injury resulting in death almost immediately after the incident, the intention was clearly to cause a bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. We find that the conviction recorded by the trial Court for offence under Section 304, Part ii merely on a finding that there was no intention to cause death without considering the applicability of other clauses of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is perverse. The proper course to be followed by the trial Court in such cases has been laid down by the Apex court in the case of Rayavarapu Punnayya's case (supra ). After making comparison between the requisites of Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code in para 21 of the said judgment, the Apex Court observed as under: "21. The proper course to be followed by the trial Court in such cases has been laid down by the Apex court in the case of Rayavarapu Punnayya's case (supra ). After making comparison between the requisites of Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code in para 21 of the said judgment, the Apex Court observed as under: "21. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the facts of a case it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section 300 If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending respectively, on whether the second or third Clause of Sec. 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under First Part of Section 304, penal Code. "in our view, these broad guidelines given by the Apex Court were lost sight of by the trial court. The trial Cpurt was in error in not convicting accused no. 1 Pandurang for an offence under Section 302 merely upon arriving at a finding that he may not have intention of causing death of the deceased. We, therefore, find that two appeals will have to be allowed partly. The trial Cpurt was in error in not convicting accused no. 1 Pandurang for an offence under Section 302 merely upon arriving at a finding that he may not have intention of causing death of the deceased. We, therefore, find that two appeals will have to be allowed partly. ( 16 ) IN the net result, the impugned judgment and order dated 03-04-2000 in sessions Case No. 11 of 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, osmanabad, is substituted by the following order of conviction and sentence. (A) Accused No. 1 Pandurang s/o. Isa bolwat is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. (B) Accused No. 2 Tukaram Balbhim chikne, Accused No 3 Sukhdeo s/o. Balbhim Chikne and Accused No. 4 balbhim s/o. Pandu Chikne are convicted of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. (C) Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are also convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs 300/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days. (D) We find from the record that accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 have already undergone the sentences imposed on them and therefore, they need not surrender to their bail. (E) Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian penal Code and Section 304 (2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. (F) Accused No. l Pandurang shall surrender to his bail on or before 11- 11-2005 The bail bondof accused no. 1 pandurang shall stand extended to the date on which he actually surrenders or till 11-11-2005 whichever is earlier and shall stand cancelled thereafter. Thereafter, if accused no. (F) Accused No. l Pandurang shall surrender to his bail on or before 11- 11-2005 The bail bondof accused no. 1 pandurang shall stand extended to the date on which he actually surrenders or till 11-11-2005 whichever is earlier and shall stand cancelled thereafter. Thereafter, if accused no. 1 Pandurang in Cnminal Appeal No. 163 of 2000 does not surrender on or before 11-11-2005, the learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, shall issue non-bailable warrant to secure his arrest. (G) Both the appeals have been partly allowed and stand disposed of accordingly. Appeals partly allowed.